From: Erwan Velu <erwanaliasr1@gmail.com>
To: ak@linux.intel.com, axboe@kernel.dk
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Unexpected latencies on lseek() SEEK_SET on block devices
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 21:48:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <509AC911.1040700@gmail.com> (raw)
Hi fellows,
I'm been facing some lseek() troubles on a very light hardware (Atom E660) under heavy load (network + cpu + disk IOs). I'm using 3.2.32 on a 32bit Os with a local SSD as mass storage.
If a do open a block device like sdb1 and lseek SEEK_SET in it, some unexpected latencies occurs.
Using the same load, everything works perfectly by using contigous streams but once I do lseek it start to be laggy. I've been searching around for a while and finally found this message : https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/9/15/399 from Andy.
The description was very similar to what I experienced but the patch from Andy was on to the fs layer.
I've been looking the code for the block level layer and found the implementation is pretty different.
http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.2.33/fs/read_write.c#L69
vs
http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.2.33/fs/block_dev.c#L353
As I can see, we do first put the mutex, then i_size_read and then considering the kind of SEEK we want.
The semantic changes from the read_write implementation where it does the locking only for SEEK_CUR and i_size_read isn't executed for SEEK_SET.
So I really wonder if we shall rework this part to avoid the uncessary locking for all of them except SEEK_CUR and remove i_size_read from SEEK_SET. The i_size_read is also a matter as it does a memory barrier. On such low-end hardware I have, that could costs.
I can work on it and validate its performances unless the experts you are told me this is a mandatory feature.
Thanks for your attention and comments on this topic.
Erwan,
next reply other threads:[~2012-11-07 20:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-07 20:48 Erwan Velu [this message]
2012-11-20 5:57 ` Unexpected latencies on lseek() SEEK_SET on block devices Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=509AC911.1040700@gmail.com \
--to=erwanaliasr1@gmail.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox