Splice status

Splice status

[Ofer Heifetz]

Hi

I have been trying to test splice on kernel 2.6.35_4 (x86) from Samba (v3.4.7) but could not copy more than ~60MB to the Samba server share.

Strace shows that the splice got stuck in blocking mode on the splice call from socket to pipe.

Has anyone managed to get splice from socket to fd work for large files (up to 4G file size) ?

-Ofer

Re: Splice status

[Changli Gao]

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Ofer Heifetz <oferh@marvell.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have been trying to test splice on kernel 2.6.35_4 (x86) from Samba (v3.4.7) but could not copy more than ~60MB to the Samba server share.
>
> Strace shows that the splice got stuck in blocking mode on the splice call from socket to pipe.
>

Did you drain the pipe before calling splice(2) to move data from
socket to pipe?

-- 
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)

RE: Splice status

[Ofer Heifetz]

I am using Samba, so from my understanding of the source code, it loops and performs splice(sock, pipe) and splice(pipe, fd). There is no flush of any sort in between.

When you say drain you mean to flush all data to pipe?

-Ofer

-----Original Message-----
From: Changli Gao [mailto:xiaosuo@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 12:59 PM
To: Ofer Heifetz
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Splice status

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Ofer Heifetz <oferh@marvell.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have been trying to test splice on kernel 2.6.35_4 (x86) from Samba (v3.4.7) but could not copy more than ~60MB to the Samba server share.
>
> Strace shows that the splice got stuck in blocking mode on the splice call from socket to pipe.
>

Did you drain the pipe before calling splice(2) to move data from
socket to pipe?

-- 
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)

Re: Splice status

[Changli Gao]

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Ofer Heifetz <oferh@marvell.com> wrote:
> I am using Samba, so from my understanding of the source code, it loops and performs splice(sock, pipe) and splice(pipe, fd). There is no flush of any sort in between.
>

I checked the function: sys_recvfile() and found It is buggy.

                to_write = nread;
                while (to_write > 0) {
                        int thistime;
                        thistime = splice(pipefd[0], NULL, tofd,
                                          &splice_offset, to_write,
                                          SPLICE_F_MOVE);
                        if (thistime == -1) {
                                goto done;
                        }
                        to_write -= thistime;
                }

                total_written += nread;
                count -= nread;

When splice fails, it should drain the pipe. If not, the following
splice(2) to pipe may hang, because the pipe hasn't enough space for
the data read from socket.

> When you say drain you mean to flush all data to pipe?
>

No. I means to read all the data in the pipe.


-- 
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)

RE: Splice status

[Eric Dumazet]

Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 13:52 +0300, Ofer Heifetz a écrit :
> I am using Samba, so from my understanding of the source code, it
loops and performs splice(sock, pipe) and splice(pipe, fd). There is no
flush of any sort in between.
> 
> When you say drain you mean to flush all data to pipe?
> 

Draining pipe before splice() call would only trigger the bug less
often.

splice(sock, pipe) can block if caller dont use appropriate "non
blocking pipe' splice() mode, even if pipe is empty before a splice()
call.

Last time I checked, splice() code was disabled in samba.

Is it a patched version ?

Samba should add SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK to first splice() call (from sock to
pipe)

(You also need a recent kernel, check for details :
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/34511/ )

diff --git a/source3/lib/recvfile.c b/source3/lib/recvfile.c
index ea01596..65e6f34 100644
--- a/source3/lib/recvfile.c
+++ b/source3/lib/recvfile.c
@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ ssize_t sys_recvfile(int fromfd,
                int nread, to_write;
 
                nread = splice(fromfd, NULL, pipefd[1], NULL,
-                              MIN(count, 16384), SPLICE_F_MOVE);
+                              MIN(count, 16384), SPLICE_F_MOVE | SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK);
                if (nread == -1) {
                        if (errno == EINTR) {
                                continue;

RE: Splice status

[Ofer Heifetz]

Hi,

Well, Samba still disables splice support (hard coded), I applied your patch (adding the SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK to the splice(sock, pipe)) and I managed to write 4G file to Samba share.

I did notice that the splice is done on buffers in two sizes: 1380 and 2760 (when writing to share file), I guess that if I can get samba to use bigger buffers it will reduce the splice calls and achieve better performance.

I also saw that when re-writing a file splice does use the maximum buffer size (~16K) occasionally.

Need to perform some more testing with samba splice ...

-Ofer

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dumazet [mailto:eric.dumazet@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 3:51 PM
To: Ofer Heifetz
Cc: Changli Gao; netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Splice status

Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 13:52 +0300, Ofer Heifetz a écrit :
> I am using Samba, so from my understanding of the source code, it
loops and performs splice(sock, pipe) and splice(pipe, fd). There is no
flush of any sort in between.
> 
> When you say drain you mean to flush all data to pipe?
> 

Draining pipe before splice() call would only trigger the bug less
often.

splice(sock, pipe) can block if caller dont use appropriate "non
blocking pipe' splice() mode, even if pipe is empty before a splice()
call.

Last time I checked, splice() code was disabled in samba.

Is it a patched version ?

Samba should add SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK to first splice() call (from sock to
pipe)

(You also need a recent kernel, check for details :
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/34511/ )

diff --git a/source3/lib/recvfile.c b/source3/lib/recvfile.c
index ea01596..65e6f34 100644
--- a/source3/lib/recvfile.c
+++ b/source3/lib/recvfile.c
@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ ssize_t sys_recvfile(int fromfd,
                int nread, to_write;
 
                nread = splice(fromfd, NULL, pipefd[1], NULL,
-                              MIN(count, 16384), SPLICE_F_MOVE);
+                              MIN(count, 16384), SPLICE_F_MOVE | SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK);
                if (nread == -1) {
                        if (errno == EINTR) {
                                continue;

RE: Splice status

[Eric Dumazet]

Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 16:47 +0300, Ofer Heifetz a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> Well, Samba still disables splice support (hard coded), I applied your
> patch (adding the SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK to the splice(sock, pipe)) and I
> managed to write 4G file to Samba share.
> 
> I did notice that the splice is done on buffers in two sizes: 1380 and
> 2760 (when writing to share file), I guess that if I can get samba to
> use bigger buffers it will reduce the splice calls and achieve better
> performance.
> 

Note that if your load increases or network is faster, splice will
naturally use more data per call. Dont worry.

Also, you can change MIN(count, 16384) to MIN(count, 65536) now the real
samba bug is known and can be fixed (by the SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK patch I
sent)

(I guess using 16384 instead of 65536 was a try to reduce hang
probability)


> I also saw that when re-writing a file splice does use the maximum
> buffer size (~16K) occasionally.

max is 16 * PAGE_SIZE, 65536 bytes on x86

> 
> Need to perform some more testing with samba splice ...
> 
> -Ofer
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dumazet [mailto:eric.dumazet@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 3:51 PM
> To: Ofer Heifetz
> Cc: Changli Gao; netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: Splice status
> 
> Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 13:52 +0300, Ofer Heifetz a écrit :
> > I am using Samba, so from my understanding of the source code, it
> loops and performs splice(sock, pipe) and splice(pipe, fd). There is no
> flush of any sort in between.
> > 
> > When you say drain you mean to flush all data to pipe?
> > 
> 
> Draining pipe before splice() call would only trigger the bug less
> often.
> 
> splice(sock, pipe) can block if caller dont use appropriate "non
> blocking pipe' splice() mode, even if pipe is empty before a splice()
> call.
> 
> Last time I checked, splice() code was disabled in samba.
> 
> Is it a patched version ?
> 
> Samba should add SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK to first splice() call (from sock to
> pipe)
> 
> (You also need a recent kernel, check for details :
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/34511/ )
> 
> diff --git a/source3/lib/recvfile.c b/source3/lib/recvfile.c
> index ea01596..65e6f34 100644
> --- a/source3/lib/recvfile.c
> +++ b/source3/lib/recvfile.c
> @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ ssize_t sys_recvfile(int fromfd,
>                 int nread, to_write;
>  
>                 nread = splice(fromfd, NULL, pipefd[1], NULL,
> -                              MIN(count, 16384), SPLICE_F_MOVE);
> +                              MIN(count, 16384), SPLICE_F_MOVE | SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK);
>                 if (nread == -1) {
>                         if (errno == EINTR) {
>                                 continue;
> 
> 

Re: Splice status

[Changli Gao]

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 13:52 +0300, Ofer Heifetz a écrit :
>> I am using Samba, so from my understanding of the source code, it
> loops and performs splice(sock, pipe) and splice(pipe, fd). There is no
> flush of any sort in between.
>>
>> When you say drain you mean to flush all data to pipe?
>>
>
> Draining pipe before splice() call would only trigger the bug less
> often.

If we don't drain the pipe before calling splice(2), the data spliced
from pipe maybe not be what we expect. Then data corruption occurs.

>
> splice(sock, pipe) can block if caller dont use appropriate "non
> blocking pipe' splice() mode, even if pipe is empty before a splice()
> call.

I don't think it is expected. The code of sys_recvfile is much like
the sendfile(2) implementation in kernel. If sys_recvfile may block
without non_block flag, sendfile(2) may block too.

BTW: Samba can use sendfile(2) instead in sys_recvfile.

-- 
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)

RE: Splice status

[Ofer Heifetz]

Regarding your remark of replacing sendfile with recvfile, I have two questions:
1) what will be used if both are enabled in smb.conf
2) from your experience, which is faster for reading files?
________________________________________
From: Changli Gao [xiaosuo@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 5:01 AM
To: Eric Dumazet
Cc: Jens Axboe; Ofer Heifetz; netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Splice status

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 13:52 +0300, Ofer Heifetz a écrit :
>> I am using Samba, so from my understanding of the source code, it
> loops and performs splice(sock, pipe) and splice(pipe, fd). There is no
> flush of any sort in between.
>>
>> When you say drain you mean to flush all data to pipe?
>>
>
> Draining pipe before splice() call would only trigger the bug less
> often.

If we don't drain the pipe before calling splice(2), the data spliced
from pipe maybe not be what we expect. Then data corruption occurs.

>
> splice(sock, pipe) can block if caller dont use appropriate "non
> blocking pipe' splice() mode, even if pipe is empty before a splice()
> call.

I don't think it is expected. The code of sys_recvfile is much like
the sendfile(2) implementation in kernel. If sys_recvfile may block
without non_block flag, sendfile(2) may block too.

BTW: Samba can use sendfile(2) instead in sys_recvfile.

--
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)

Re: Splice status

[Eric Dumazet]

Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 10:01 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit :
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 13:52 +0300, Ofer Heifetz a écrit :
> >> I am using Samba, so from my understanding of the source code, it
> > loops and performs splice(sock, pipe) and splice(pipe, fd). There is no
> > flush of any sort in between.
> >>
> >> When you say drain you mean to flush all data to pipe?
> >>
> >
> > Draining pipe before splice() call would only trigger the bug less
> > often.
> 
> If we don't drain the pipe before calling splice(2), the data spliced
> from pipe maybe not be what we expect. Then data corruption occurs.
> 

This is not true. A pipe is a pipe is a buffer. You dont need it to be
empty when using it. Nowhere in documentation its stated.

However, a single skb can fill a pipe, even if "its empty"



> >
> > splice(sock, pipe) can block if caller dont use appropriate "non
> > blocking pipe' splice() mode, even if pipe is empty before a splice()
> > call.
> 
> I don't think it is expected. The code of sys_recvfile is much like
> the sendfile(2) implementation in kernel. If sys_recvfile may block
> without non_block flag, sendfile(2) may block too.

Then it would be a bug. You might fix it easily.

Using splice() correctly (ie, not blocking on sock->pipe) should work
too.

Again, you can block on splice(sock, pipe), iff you have a second thread
doing the opposite (pipe->file) in parallel to unblock you. But samba
recvfile algo is using a single thread.

> 
> BTW: Samba can use sendfile(2) instead in sys_recvfile.
> 

Re: Splice status

[Changli Gao]

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 10:01 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit :
>>
>> If we don't drain the pipe before calling splice(2), the data spliced
>> from pipe maybe not be what we expect. Then data corruption occurs.
>>
>
> This is not true. A pipe is a pipe is a buffer. You dont need it to be
> empty when using it. Nowhere in documentation its stated.

Do you mean splice(2) empties the pipe buffer before using it as an
output buffer? If not, the pipe draining is needed to avoid data
corruption.

>
> However, a single skb can fill a pipe, even if "its empty"
>

Yea. Because tcp_splice_read() doesn't know if the __tcp_splice_read
returns due to pipe fulling.

>
>> >
>> > splice(sock, pipe) can block if caller dont use appropriate "non
>> > blocking pipe' splice() mode, even if pipe is empty before a splice()
>> > call.
>>
>> I don't think it is expected. The code of sys_recvfile is much like
>> the sendfile(2) implementation in kernel. If sys_recvfile may block
>> without non_block flag, sendfile(2) may block too.
>
> Then it would be a bug. You might fix it easily.

It seems reasonable. I'll fix it.

>
> Using splice() correctly (ie, not blocking on sock->pipe) should work
> too.
>
> Again, you can block on splice(sock, pipe), iff you have a second thread
> doing the opposite (pipe->file) in parallel to unblock you. But samba
> recvfile algo is using a single thread.
>




-- 
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)

RE: Splice status

[Ofer Heifetz]

Hi,

I wanted to let you know that I have been testing Samba splice on Marvell 6282 SoC on 2.6.35_rc3 and noticed that it gave worst performance than not using it and also noticed that on re-writing file the iowait is high.

iometer using 2G file (file is created before test)

Splice  write cpu% iow%
-----------------------
 No     58    98    0
Yes     14   100   48

iozone using 2G file (file created during test)

Splice  write cpu% iow%  re-write cpu% iow%  
-------------------------------------------
 No     35    85    4    58.2     70    0
Yes     33    85    4    15.7    100   58

Any clue why splice introduces a high iowait?
I noticed samba uses up to 16K per splice syscall, changing the samba to try more did not help, so I guess it is a kernel limitation.

-Ofer

-----Original Message-----
From: Changli Gao [mailto:xiaosuo@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 4:09 PM
To: Eric Dumazet
Cc: Jens Axboe; Ofer Heifetz; netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Splice status

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 10:01 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit :
>>
>> If we don't drain the pipe before calling splice(2), the data spliced
>> from pipe maybe not be what we expect. Then data corruption occurs.
>>
>
> This is not true. A pipe is a pipe is a buffer. You dont need it to be
> empty when using it. Nowhere in documentation its stated.

Do you mean splice(2) empties the pipe buffer before using it as an
output buffer? If not, the pipe draining is needed to avoid data
corruption.

>
> However, a single skb can fill a pipe, even if "its empty"
>

Yea. Because tcp_splice_read() doesn't know if the __tcp_splice_read
returns due to pipe fulling.

>
>> >
>> > splice(sock, pipe) can block if caller dont use appropriate "non
>> > blocking pipe' splice() mode, even if pipe is empty before a splice()
>> > call.
>>
>> I don't think it is expected. The code of sys_recvfile is much like
>> the sendfile(2) implementation in kernel. If sys_recvfile may block
>> without non_block flag, sendfile(2) may block too.
>
> Then it would be a bug. You might fix it easily.

It seems reasonable. I'll fix it.

>
> Using splice() correctly (ie, not blocking on sock->pipe) should work
> too.
>
> Again, you can block on splice(sock, pipe), iff you have a second thread
> doing the opposite (pipe->file) in parallel to unblock you. But samba
> recvfile algo is using a single thread.
>




-- 
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)

Re: Splice status

[Changli Gao]

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Ofer Heifetz <oferh@marvell.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to let you know that I have been testing Samba splice on Marvell 6282 SoC on 2.6.35_rc3 and noticed that it gave worst performance than not using it and also noticed that on re-writing file the iowait is high.
>
> iometer using 2G file (file is created before test)
>
> Splice  write cpu% iow%
> -----------------------
>  No     58    98    0
> Yes     14   100   48
>
> iozone using 2G file (file created during test)
>
> Splice  write cpu% iow%  re-write cpu% iow%
> -------------------------------------------
>  No     35    85    4    58.2     70    0
> Yes     33    85    4    15.7    100   58
>
> Any clue why splice introduces a high iowait?
> I noticed samba uses up to 16K per splice syscall, changing the samba to try more did not help, so I guess it is a kernel limitation.
>
> -Ofer
>

What does the column write means? And what do you mean by saying
re-write? Thanks.

-- 
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)

RE: Splice status

[Ofer Heifetz]

Write and re-write numbers are in MBps.
Iozone performs re-write meaning reads a chunk of data and writes it back, so basically the performance for this operation should be quiet high since kernel caches usage.

I forgot to mention that I used EXT4 fs.

-Ofer

-----Original Message-----
From: Changli Gao [mailto:xiaosuo@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:32 PM
To: Ofer Heifetz
Cc: Eric Dumazet; Jens Axboe; netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Splice status

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Ofer Heifetz <oferh@marvell.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to let you know that I have been testing Samba splice on Marvell 6282 SoC on 2.6.35_rc3 and noticed that it gave worst performance than not using it and also noticed that on re-writing file the iowait is high.
>
> iometer using 2G file (file is created before test)
>
> Splice  write cpu% iow%
> -----------------------
>  No     58    98    0
> Yes     14   100   48
>
> iozone using 2G file (file created during test)
>
> Splice  write cpu% iow%  re-write cpu% iow%
> -------------------------------------------
>  No     35    85    4    58.2     70    0
> Yes     33    85    4    15.7    100   58
>
> Any clue why splice introduces a high iowait?
> I noticed samba uses up to 16K per splice syscall, changing the samba to try more did not help, so I guess it is a kernel limitation.
>
> -Ofer
>

What does the column write means? And what do you mean by saying
re-write? Thanks.

-- 
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)

Re: Splice status

[Changli Gao]

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Ofer Heifetz <oferh@marvell.com> wrote:
> Write and re-write numbers are in MBps.
> Iozone performs re-write meaning reads a chunk of data and writes it back, so basically the performance for this operation should be quiet high since kernel caches usage.
>
> I forgot to mention that I used EXT4 fs.

Maybe it is caused by this line in generic_file_splice_write():

                balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(mapping, nr_pages);

Please try to test it again without this line.

-- 
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)

RE: Splice status

[Eric Dumazet]

Le mardi 13 juillet 2010 à 14:41 +0300, Ofer Heifetz a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> I wanted to let you know that I have been testing Samba splice on Marvell 6282 SoC on 2.6.35_rc3 and noticed that it gave worst performance than not using it and also noticed that on re-writing file the iowait is high.
> 
> iometer using 2G file (file is created before test)
> 
> Splice  write cpu% iow%
> -----------------------
>  No     58    98    0
> Yes     14   100   48
> 
> iozone using 2G file (file created during test)
> 
> Splice  write cpu% iow%  re-write cpu% iow%  
> -------------------------------------------
>  No     35    85    4    58.2     70    0
> Yes     33    85    4    15.7    100   58
> 
> Any clue why splice introduces a high iowait?
> I noticed samba uses up to 16K per splice syscall, changing the samba to try more did not help, so I guess it is a kernel limitation.
> 

splice(socket -> pipe) provides partial buffers (depending on the MTU)

With typical MTU=1500 and tcp timestamps, each network frame contains
1448 bytes of payload, partially filling one page (of 4096 bytes)

When doing the splice(pipe -> file), kernel has to coalesce partial
data, but amount of written data per syscall() is small (about 20
Kbytes)

Without splice(), the write() syscall provides more data, and vfs
overhead is smaller as buffer size is a power of two.

Samba uses a 128 KBytes TRANSFER_BUF_SIZE in its default_sys_recvfile()
implementation, it easily outperforms splice() implementation.

You could try extending pipe size (fcntl(fd, F_SETPIPE_SZ, 256)), maybe
it will be a bit better. (and ask 256*4096 bytes to splice())

I tried this and got about 256Kbytes per splice() call...

# perf report
# Events: 13K
#
# Overhead         Command      Shared Object  Symbol
# ........  ..............  .................  ......
#
     8.69%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] memcpy
     3.82%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kunmap_atomic
     3.51%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __block_prepare_write
     2.79%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __skb_splice_bits
     2.58%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] ext3_mark_iloc_dirty
     2.45%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] do_get_write_access
     2.04%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __find_get_block
     1.89%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] _raw_spin_lock
     1.83%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] journal_add_journal_head
     1.46%  splice-fromnet  [bnx2x]            [k] bnx2x_rx_int
     1.46%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kfree
     1.42%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] journal_put_journal_head
     1.29%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __ext3_get_inode_loc
     1.26%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] journal_dirty_metadata
     1.25%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] page_address
     1.20%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] journal_cancel_revoke
     1.15%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] tcp_read_sock
     1.09%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] unlock_buffer
     1.09%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] pipe_to_file
     1.05%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] radix_tree_lookup_element
     1.04%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kmap_atomic_prot
     1.04%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kmem_cache_free
     1.03%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kmem_cache_alloc
     1.01%  splice-fromnet  [bnx2x]            [k] bnx2x_poll

RE: Splice status

[Ofer Heifetz]

I profiled the splice iometer write run and noticed that blk_end_request_err is being called many times, it looks like a good candidate for the high iowait, need to debug the root cause for it.

-Ofer

-----Original Message-----
From: Changli Gao [mailto:xiaosuo@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:58 PM
To: Ofer Heifetz
Cc: Eric Dumazet; Jens Axboe; netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Splice status

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Ofer Heifetz <oferh@marvell.com> wrote:
> Write and re-write numbers are in MBps.
> Iozone performs re-write meaning reads a chunk of data and writes it back, so basically the performance for this operation should be quiet high since kernel caches usage.
>
> I forgot to mention that I used EXT4 fs.

Maybe it is caused by this line in generic_file_splice_write():

                balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(mapping, nr_pages);

Please try to test it again without this line.

-- 
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)

RE: Splice status

[Ofer Heifetz]

Hi,

The strange thing happens when I configure it to use 256K using fcntl, I see that it uses splice with 1460 bytes, I tried making it smaller but no change.
Any clue why I get smaller pipe though trying to resize it to 256K?

BTW I changed the kernel to 2.6.35_rc5.

-Ofer

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dumazet [mailto:eric.dumazet@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:12 PM
To: Ofer Heifetz
Cc: Changli Gao; Jens Axboe; netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Splice status

Le mardi 13 juillet 2010 à 14:41 +0300, Ofer Heifetz a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> I wanted to let you know that I have been testing Samba splice on Marvell 6282 SoC on 2.6.35_rc3 and noticed that it gave worst performance than not using it and also noticed that on re-writing file the iowait is high.
> 
> iometer using 2G file (file is created before test)
> 
> Splice  write cpu% iow%
> -----------------------
>  No     58    98    0
> Yes     14   100   48
> 
> iozone using 2G file (file created during test)
> 
> Splice  write cpu% iow%  re-write cpu% iow%  
> -------------------------------------------
>  No     35    85    4    58.2     70    0
> Yes     33    85    4    15.7    100   58
> 
> Any clue why splice introduces a high iowait?
> I noticed samba uses up to 16K per splice syscall, changing the samba to try more did not help, so I guess it is a kernel limitation.
> 

splice(socket -> pipe) provides partial buffers (depending on the MTU)

With typical MTU=1500 and tcp timestamps, each network frame contains
1448 bytes of payload, partially filling one page (of 4096 bytes)

When doing the splice(pipe -> file), kernel has to coalesce partial
data, but amount of written data per syscall() is small (about 20
Kbytes)

Without splice(), the write() syscall provides more data, and vfs
overhead is smaller as buffer size is a power of two.

Samba uses a 128 KBytes TRANSFER_BUF_SIZE in its default_sys_recvfile()
implementation, it easily outperforms splice() implementation.

You could try extending pipe size (fcntl(fd, F_SETPIPE_SZ, 256)), maybe
it will be a bit better. (and ask 256*4096 bytes to splice())

I tried this and got about 256Kbytes per splice() call...

# perf report
# Events: 13K
#
# Overhead         Command      Shared Object  Symbol
# ........  ..............  .................  ......
#
     8.69%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] memcpy
     3.82%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kunmap_atomic
     3.51%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __block_prepare_write
     2.79%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __skb_splice_bits
     2.58%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] ext3_mark_iloc_dirty
     2.45%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] do_get_write_access
     2.04%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __find_get_block
     1.89%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] _raw_spin_lock
     1.83%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] journal_add_journal_head
     1.46%  splice-fromnet  [bnx2x]            [k] bnx2x_rx_int
     1.46%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kfree
     1.42%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] journal_put_journal_head
     1.29%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __ext3_get_inode_loc
     1.26%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] journal_dirty_metadata
     1.25%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] page_address
     1.20%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] journal_cancel_revoke
     1.15%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] tcp_read_sock
     1.09%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] unlock_buffer
     1.09%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] pipe_to_file
     1.05%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] radix_tree_lookup_element
     1.04%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kmap_atomic_prot
     1.04%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kmem_cache_free
     1.03%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kmem_cache_alloc
     1.01%  splice-fromnet  [bnx2x]            [k] bnx2x_poll

RE: Splice status

[Ofer Heifetz]

Hi,

I managed to get splice use up to 64K which look to me as a samba limitation (smb.conf SO_RCVBUF limitation I think) but still do not get any performance improvement using splice, the write numbers for splice are in about the same as for regular read/write though refraining from copy_to_user and copy_from_user.

-Ofer

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dumazet [mailto:eric.dumazet@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:12 PM
To: Ofer Heifetz
Cc: Changli Gao; Jens Axboe; netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Splice status

Le mardi 13 juillet 2010 à 14:41 +0300, Ofer Heifetz a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> I wanted to let you know that I have been testing Samba splice on Marvell 6282 SoC on 2.6.35_rc3 and noticed that it gave worst performance than not using it and also noticed that on re-writing file the iowait is high.
> 
> iometer using 2G file (file is created before test)
> 
> Splice  write cpu% iow%
> -----------------------
>  No     58    98    0
> Yes     14   100   48
> 
> iozone using 2G file (file created during test)
> 
> Splice  write cpu% iow%  re-write cpu% iow%  
> -------------------------------------------
>  No     35    85    4    58.2     70    0
> Yes     33    85    4    15.7    100   58
> 
> Any clue why splice introduces a high iowait?
> I noticed samba uses up to 16K per splice syscall, changing the samba to try more did not help, so I guess it is a kernel limitation.
> 

splice(socket -> pipe) provides partial buffers (depending on the MTU)

With typical MTU=1500 and tcp timestamps, each network frame contains
1448 bytes of payload, partially filling one page (of 4096 bytes)

When doing the splice(pipe -> file), kernel has to coalesce partial
data, but amount of written data per syscall() is small (about 20
Kbytes)

Without splice(), the write() syscall provides more data, and vfs
overhead is smaller as buffer size is a power of two.

Samba uses a 128 KBytes TRANSFER_BUF_SIZE in its default_sys_recvfile()
implementation, it easily outperforms splice() implementation.

You could try extending pipe size (fcntl(fd, F_SETPIPE_SZ, 256)), maybe
it will be a bit better. (and ask 256*4096 bytes to splice())

I tried this and got about 256Kbytes per splice() call...

# perf report
# Events: 13K
#
# Overhead         Command      Shared Object  Symbol
# ........  ..............  .................  ......
#
     8.69%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] memcpy
     3.82%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kunmap_atomic
     3.51%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __block_prepare_write
     2.79%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __skb_splice_bits
     2.58%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] ext3_mark_iloc_dirty
     2.45%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] do_get_write_access
     2.04%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __find_get_block
     1.89%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] _raw_spin_lock
     1.83%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] journal_add_journal_head
     1.46%  splice-fromnet  [bnx2x]            [k] bnx2x_rx_int
     1.46%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kfree
     1.42%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] journal_put_journal_head
     1.29%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __ext3_get_inode_loc
     1.26%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] journal_dirty_metadata
     1.25%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] page_address
     1.20%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] journal_cancel_revoke
     1.15%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] tcp_read_sock
     1.09%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] unlock_buffer
     1.09%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] pipe_to_file
     1.05%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] radix_tree_lookup_element
     1.04%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kmap_atomic_prot
     1.04%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kmem_cache_free
     1.03%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kmem_cache_alloc
     1.01%  splice-fromnet  [bnx2x]            [k] bnx2x_poll

RE: Splice status

[Ofer Heifetz]

Hi Eric,

Still trying to get better performance with splice, I noticed that when using splice there are twice the file size memcpy (placed a counter in memcpy), I verified it via samba file transfer and splice-fromnet/out.

I also used the splice-fromnet/out and using ftrace I did notice that data is copied twice using these routines: skb_splice_bits, pipe_to_file.

I thought that the main goal of splice is to refrain from one copy when moving data from network to file descriptor.

If there are the same number of memcpy and context switches and in samba copy additional vfs overhead it makes sense that splice deteriates the samba overall write performance.

-Ofer

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dumazet [mailto:eric.dumazet@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:12 PM
To: Ofer Heifetz
Cc: Changli Gao; Jens Axboe; netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Splice status

Le mardi 13 juillet 2010 à 14:41 +0300, Ofer Heifetz a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> I wanted to let you know that I have been testing Samba splice on Marvell 6282 SoC on 2.6.35_rc3 and noticed that it gave worst performance than not using it and also noticed that on re-writing file the iowait is high.
> 
> iometer using 2G file (file is created before test)
> 
> Splice  write cpu% iow%
> -----------------------
>  No     58    98    0
> Yes     14   100   48
> 
> iozone using 2G file (file created during test)
> 
> Splice  write cpu% iow%  re-write cpu% iow%  
> -------------------------------------------
>  No     35    85    4    58.2     70    0
> Yes     33    85    4    15.7    100   58
> 
> Any clue why splice introduces a high iowait?
> I noticed samba uses up to 16K per splice syscall, changing the samba to try more did not help, so I guess it is a kernel limitation.
> 

splice(socket -> pipe) provides partial buffers (depending on the MTU)

With typical MTU=1500 and tcp timestamps, each network frame contains
1448 bytes of payload, partially filling one page (of 4096 bytes)

When doing the splice(pipe -> file), kernel has to coalesce partial
data, but amount of written data per syscall() is small (about 20
Kbytes)

Without splice(), the write() syscall provides more data, and vfs
overhead is smaller as buffer size is a power of two.

Samba uses a 128 KBytes TRANSFER_BUF_SIZE in its default_sys_recvfile()
implementation, it easily outperforms splice() implementation.

You could try extending pipe size (fcntl(fd, F_SETPIPE_SZ, 256)), maybe
it will be a bit better. (and ask 256*4096 bytes to splice())

I tried this and got about 256Kbytes per splice() call...

# perf report
# Events: 13K
#
# Overhead         Command      Shared Object  Symbol
# ........  ..............  .................  ......
#
     8.69%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] memcpy
     3.82%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kunmap_atomic
     3.51%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __block_prepare_write
     2.79%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __skb_splice_bits
     2.58%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] ext3_mark_iloc_dirty
     2.45%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] do_get_write_access
     2.04%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __find_get_block
     1.89%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] _raw_spin_lock
     1.83%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] journal_add_journal_head
     1.46%  splice-fromnet  [bnx2x]            [k] bnx2x_rx_int
     1.46%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kfree
     1.42%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] journal_put_journal_head
     1.29%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __ext3_get_inode_loc
     1.26%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] journal_dirty_metadata
     1.25%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] page_address
     1.20%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] journal_cancel_revoke
     1.15%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] tcp_read_sock
     1.09%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] unlock_buffer
     1.09%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] pipe_to_file
     1.05%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] radix_tree_lookup_element
     1.04%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kmap_atomic_prot
     1.04%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kmem_cache_free
     1.03%  splice-fromnet  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kmem_cache_alloc
     1.01%  splice-fromnet  [bnx2x]            [k] bnx2x_poll

Re: Splice status

[Changli Gao]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Ofer Heifetz <oferh@marvell.com> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Still trying to get better performance with splice, I noticed that when using splice there are twice the file size memcpy (placed a counter in memcpy), I verified it via samba file transfer and splice-fromnet/out.
>
> I also used the splice-fromnet/out and using ftrace I did notice that data is copied twice using these routines: skb_splice_bits, pipe_to_file.
>
> I thought that the main goal of splice is to refrain from one copy when moving data from network to file descriptor.
>
> If there are the same number of memcpy and context switches and in samba copy additional vfs overhead it makes sense that splice deteriates the samba overall write performance.
>

The support for SPLICE_F_MOVE is removed by Nick in commit
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git;a=commitdiff;h=485ddb4b9741bafb70b22e5c1f9b4f37dc3e85bd
.

Nick, can we add it back now?

-- 
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)

Re: Splice status

[Jarek Poplawski]

Ofer Heifetz wrote, On 25.07.2010 16:47:

> Hi Eric,
> 
> Still trying to get better performance with splice, I noticed that when using splice there are twice the file size memcpy (placed a counter in memcpy), I verified it via samba file transfer and splice-fromnet/out.
> 
> I also used the splice-fromnet/out and using ftrace I did notice that data is copied twice using these routines: skb_splice_bits, pipe_to_file.


I'm not sure you're using optimal NIC for splice, which should use
skbs with almost all data paged (non-linear), like niu or myri10ge.

Jarek P.

Re: Splice status

[Eric Dumazet]

Le lundi 26 juillet 2010 à 22:37 +0200, Jarek Poplawski a écrit :
> Ofer Heifetz wrote, On 25.07.2010 16:47:
> 
> > Hi Eric,
> > 
> > Still trying to get better performance with splice, I noticed that when using splice there are twice the file size memcpy (placed a counter in memcpy), I verified it via samba file transfer and splice-fromnet/out.
> > 
> > I also used the splice-fromnet/out and using ftrace I did notice that data is copied twice using these routines: skb_splice_bits, pipe_to_file.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you're using optimal NIC for splice, which should use
> skbs with almost all data paged (non-linear), like niu or myri10ge.
> 
> Jarek P.

Yes, I dont think splice() _should_ be faster, with a NIC delivering
frames of 1460 (or less bytes), when disk IO should be performed with 4
Kbytes blocs (or a multiple) to get good performance.

sendfile(file -> socket) is fast because blocs are pages, but
splice(socket -> file) is not fast, unless the NIC is able to perform
tcp receive offload.

To take an analogy, think about libc stdio versus read(2)/write(2)
syscalls. stdio, while doing copies in intermediate buffers, is able to
be faster than read()/write() in most cases.

Using splice() with 1460 bytes frames is like using read()/write()
instead of nice sized buffers given by stdio layer.

zero-copy can hurt badly if the IO sizes are not page aligned.