public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>,
	"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>,
	Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@gmail.com>,
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] mm: kick writeback flusher for IOCB_DONTCACHE with targeted dirty tracking
Date: Fri, 1 May 2026 10:44:11 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ec07180c-665a-4e78-94a4-1670a8bf8efd@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260501-dontcache-v4-2-5d5e6dc71cb3@kernel.org>

On 5/1/26 3:49 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> The IOCB_DONTCACHE writeback path in generic_write_sync() calls
> filemap_flush_range() on every write, submitting writeback inline in
> the writer's context.  Perf lock contention profiling shows the
> performance problem is not lock contention but the writeback submission
> work itself — walking the page tree and submitting I/O blocks the writer
> for milliseconds, inflating p99.9 latency from 23ms (buffered) to 93ms
> (dontcache).
> 
> Replace the inline filemap_flush_range() call with a flusher kick that
> drains dirty pages in the background.  This moves writeback submission
> completely off the writer's hot path.
> 
> To avoid flushing unrelated buffered dirty data, add a dedicated
> WB_start_dontcache bit and wb_check_start_dontcache() handler that uses
> the per-wb WB_DONTCACHE_DIRTY counter to determine how many pages to
> write back.  The flusher writes back that many pages from the oldest dirty
> inodes (not restricted to dontcache-specific inodes). This helps
> preserve I/O batching while limiting the scope of expedited writeback.
> 
> Like WB_start_all, the WB_start_dontcache bit coalesces multiple
> DONTCACHE writes into a single flusher wakeup without per-write
> allocations.
> 
> Also add WB_REASON_DONTCACHE as a new writeback reason for tracing
> visibility, and target the correct cgroup writeback domain via
> unlocked_inode_to_wb_begin().
> 
> dontcache-bench results (same host, T6F_SKL_1920GBF, 251 GiB RAM,
> xfs on NVMe, fio io_uring):
> 
> Buffered and direct I/O paths are unaffected by this patchset. All
> improvements are confined to the dontcache path:
> 
> Single-stream throughput (MB/s):
>                         Before    After    Change
>   seq-write/dontcache      298      897    +201%
>   rand-write/dontcache     131      236     +80%
> 
> Tail latency improvements (seq-write/dontcache):
>   p99:    135,266 us  ->  23,986 us   (-82%)
>   p99.9: 8,925,479 us ->  28,443 us   (-99.7%)
> 
> Multi-writer (4 jobs, sequential write):
>                                 Before    After    Change
>   dontcache aggregate (MB/s)     2,529    4,532     +79%
>   dontcache p99 (us)             8,553    1,002     -88%
>   dontcache p99.9 (us)         109,314    1,057     -99%
> 
>   Dontcache multi-writer throughput now matches buffered (4,532 vs
>   4,616 MB/s).
> 
> 32-file write (Axboe test):
>                                 Before    After    Change
>   dontcache aggregate (MB/s)     1,548    3,499    +126%
>   dontcache p99 (us)            10,170      602     -94%
>   Peak dirty pages (MB)          1,837      213     -88%
> 
>   Dontcache now reaches 81% of buffered throughput (was 35%).
> 
> Competing writers (dontcache vs buffered, separate files):
>                                 Before    After
>   buffered writer                  868      433 MB/s
>   dontcache writer                 415      433 MB/s
>   Aggregate                      1,284      866 MB/s
> 
>   Previously the buffered writer starved the dontcache writer 2:1.
>   With per-bdi_writeback tracking, both writers now receive equal
>   bandwidth. The aggregate matches the buffered-vs-buffered baseline
>   (863 MB/s), indicating fair sharing regardless of I/O mode.
> 
>   The dontcache writer's p99.9 latency collapsed from 119 ms to
>   33 ms (-73%), eliminating the severe periodic stalls seen in the
>   baseline. Both writers now share identical latency profiles,
>   matching the buffered-vs-buffered pattern.
> 
> The per-bdi_writeback dirty tracking dramatically reduces peak dirty
> pages in dontcache workloads, with the 32-file test dropping from
> 1.8 GB to 213 MB. Dontcache sequential write throughput triples and
> multi-writer throughput reaches parity with buffered I/O, with tail
> latencies collapsing by 1-2 orders of magnitude.

I like this, this is the better way to kick off the writeback.

Reviewed-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2026-05-01 16:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-01  9:49 [PATCH v4 0/4] mm: improve write performance with RWF_DONTCACHE Jeff Layton
2026-05-01  9:49 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] mm: track DONTCACHE dirty pages per bdi_writeback Jeff Layton
2026-05-03 14:37   ` Jan Kara
2026-05-01  9:49 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] mm: kick writeback flusher for IOCB_DONTCACHE with targeted dirty tracking Jeff Layton
2026-05-01 16:44   ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2026-05-03 14:45   ` Jan Kara
2026-05-03 18:41     ` Jeff Layton
2026-05-01  9:49 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] testing: add nfsd-io-bench NFS server benchmark suite Jeff Layton
2026-05-01  9:49 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] testing: add dontcache-bench local filesystem " Jeff Layton

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=ec07180c-665a-4e78-94a4-1670a8bf8efd@kernel.dk \
    --to=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=Liam.Howlett@oracle.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
    --cc=david@kernel.org \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ljs@kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
    --cc=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=snitzer@kernel.org \
    --cc=surenb@google.com \
    --cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=willy@infradead.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