Re: [PATCH 0/6] writeback time order/delay fixes take 3

Fengguang Wu
2007-08-29T07:53:46Z

On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:33:08AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:08:20AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:55:30 +1000
> > David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 09:55:04PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 12:33:06PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:18:41AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:23:14PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > > > > Notes:
> > > > > > (1) I'm not sure inode number is correlated to disk location in
> > > > > > filesystems other than ext2/3/4. Or parent dir?
> > > > >
> > > > > The correspond to the exact location on disk on XFS. But, XFS has
> > > > > it's own inode clustering (see xfs_iflush) and it can't be moved
> > > > > up into the generic layers because of locking and integration into
> > > > > the transaction subsystem.
> > > > >
> > > > > > (2) It duplicates some function of elevators. Why is it
> > > > > > necessary?
> > > > >
> > > > > The elevators have no clue as to how the filesystem might treat
> > > > > adjacent inodes. In XFS, inode clustering is a fundamental
> > > > > feature of the inode reading and writing and that is something no
> > > > > elevator can hope to acheive....
> > > >
> > > > Thank you. That explains the linear write curve(perfect!) in Chris'
> > > > graph.
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if XFS can benefit any more from the general writeback
> > > > clustering. How large would be a typical XFS cluster?
> > >
> > > Depends on inode size. typically they are 8k in size, so anything
> > > from 4-32 inodes. The inode writeback clustering is pretty tightly
> > > integrated into the transaction subsystem and has some intricate
> > > locking, so it's not likely to be easy (or perhaps even possible) to
> > > make it more generic.
> >
> > When I talked to hch about this, he said the order file data pages got
> > written in XFS was still dictated by the order the higher layers sent
> > things down.
>
> Sure, that's file data. I was talking about the inode writeback, not the
> data writeback.
>
> > Shouldn't the clustering still help to have delalloc done
> > in inode order instead of in whatever random order pdflush sends things
> > down now?
>
> Depends on how things are being allocated. if you've got inode32 allocation
> and >1TB filesytsem, then data is nowhere near the inodes. If you've got large
> allocation groups, then data is typically nowhere near the inodes, either. If
> you've got full AGs, data will be nowehere near the inodes. If you've got
> large files and lots of data to write, then clustering multiple files together
> for writing is not needed. So in many cases, clustering delalloc writes by
> inode number doesn't provide any better I/o patterns than not clustering...
>
> The only difference we may see is that if we flush all the data on inodes
> in a single cluster, we can get away with a single inode cluster write
> for all of the inodes....

So we end up with two major cases:

- small files: inode and its data are expected to be close enough,
hence it can help I_DIRTY_SYNC and/or I_DIRTY_PAGES

- big files: inode and its data may or may not be separated
- I_DIRTY_SYNC: could be improved
- I_DIRTY_PAGES: no better, no worse(it's big I/O, the seek
cost is not relevant in any case)

Conclusion: _inode_ writeback clustering is enough.

Isn't it simple? ;-)

Fengguang