Re: fadvise interferes with readahead

Fengguang Wu
2012-11-21T07:58:25Z

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:51:03PM +0800, Jaegeuk Hanse wrote:
> On 11/20/2012 10:58 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:34:11AM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
> >>On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
> >>>Yes. The kernel readahead code by design will outperform simple
> >>>fadvise in the case of clustered random reads. Imagine the access
> >>>pattern 1, 3, 2, 6, 4, 9. fadvise will trigger 6 IOs literally. While
> >>>kernel readahead will likely trigger 3 IOs for 1, 3, 2-9. Because on
> >>>the page miss for 2, it will detect the existence of history page 1
> >>>and do readahead properly. For hard disks, it's mainly the number of
> >>>IOs that matters. So even if kernel readahead loses some opportunities
> >>>to do async IO and possibly loads some extra pages that will never be
> >>>used, it still manges to perform much better.
> >>>
> >>>>The fix would lay in fadvise, I think. It should update readahead
> >>>>tracking structures. Alternatively, one could try to do it in
> >>>>do_generic_file_read, updating readahead on !PageUptodate or even on
> >>>>page cache hits. I really don't have the expertise or time to go
> >>>>modifying, building and testing the supposedly quite simple patch that
> >>>>would fix this. It's mostly about the testing, in fact. So if someone
> >>>>can comment or try by themselves, I guess it would really benefit
> >>>>those relying on fadvise to fix this behavior.
> >>>One possible solution is to try the context readahead at fadvise time
> >>>to check the existence of history pages and do readahead accordingly.
> >>>
> >>>However it will introduce *real interferences* between kernel
> >>>readahead and user prefetching. The original scheme is, once user
> >>>space starts its own informed prefetching, kernel readahead will
> >>>automatically stand out of the way.
> >>I understand that would seem like a reasonable design, but in this
> >>particular case it doesn't seem to be. I propose that in most cases it
> >>doesn't really work well as a design decision, to make fadvise work as
> >>direct I/O. Precisely because fadvise is supposed to be a hint to let
> >>the kernel make better decisions, and not a request to make the kernel
> >>stop making decisions.
> >>
> >>Any interference so introduced wouldn't be any worse than the
> >>interference introduced by readahead over reads. I agree, if fadvise
> >>were to trigger readahead, it could be bad for applications that don't
> >>read what they say the will.
> >Right.
> >
> >>But if cache hits were to simply update
> >>readahead state, it would only mean that read calls behave the same
> >>regardless of fadvise calls. I think that's worth pursuing.
> >Here you are describing an alternative solution that will somehow trap
> >into the readahead code even when, for example, the application is
> >accessing once and again an already cached file? I'm afraid this will
> >add non-trivial overheads and is less attractive than the "readahead
> >on fadvise" solution.
>
> Hi Fengguang,
>
> Page cache sync readahead only triggered when cache miss, but if
> file has already cached, how can readahead be trigged again if the
> application is accessing once and again an already cached file.

The answer is opposite to your expectation: for an already cached
file, kernel readahead code won't be triggered at all, which is good
for avoid pointless overheads for the common repeated memory hot
accesses.

Thanks,
Fengguang