From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Eric Whitney <eric.whitney@hp.com>
Cc: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
Keith Maanthey <kmannth@us.ibm.com>
Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH, RFC 0/3] *** SUBJECT HERE *** (ext4 scalability patches)
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:08:09 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100811210809.GC24435@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C60CA3A.5070807@hp.com>
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 11:40:42PM -0400, Eric Whitney wrote:
>
> My 48 core test results for these patches as applied to 2.6.35 can
> be found at:
>
> http://free.linux.hp.com/~enw/ext4/2.6.35
>
> Both the Boxacle large_file_creates and random_writes workloads
> improved significantly and consistently with these patches, and
> apparently in the single threaded case as well as at increased
> scale.
Thanks for doing these runs! I very much appreciate it --- it's
really helped to validate these patches. Looking at your results, the
two things which stand out to me is that we've now reached parity with
XFS on the random write workload on the 48 and 192 core runs. On the
large file creates workload, looking at the lockstats report, it looks
like the next big thing we need to work on is to rework the
ext4_da_writepages() function.
The problem is one that's known to me for a while; we carefully spend
a bunch of CPU time walking the page structures so we have a
contiguous extent of dirty pages that need to written out --- and then
we turn around and submit each page 4k at a time. This is causing a
huge amount of pressure on the block device queue's rlock. That's
almost certainly responsible for the increased CPU utilization that we
see in both the large file create workload and random writes workload
as compared to XFS.
So that's clearly the next thing we need to tackle, and which should
further increase ext4's scalability.
- Ted
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-11 21:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-03 16:01 [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH, RFC 0/3] *** SUBJECT HERE *** Theodore Ts'o
2010-08-03 16:01 ` [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH, RFC 1/3] jbd2: Use atomic variables to avoid taking t_handle_lock in jbd2_journal_stop Theodore Ts'o
2010-08-03 16:01 ` [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH, RFC 2/3] jbd2: Change j_state_lock to be a rwlock_t Theodore Ts'o
2010-08-04 0:08 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-08-03 16:01 ` [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH, RFC 3/3] jbd2: Remove t_handle_lock from start_this_handle() Theodore Ts'o
2010-08-03 19:07 ` [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH, RFC 0/3] *** SUBJECT HERE *** Joel Becker
2010-08-03 20:07 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-08-03 21:19 ` Joel Becker
2010-08-03 22:57 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-08-10 3:40 ` [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH, RFC 0/3] *** SUBJECT HERE *** (ext4 scalability patches) Eric Whitney
2010-08-11 21:08 ` Ted Ts'o [this message]
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=20100811210809.GC24435@thunk.org \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=eric.whitney@hp.com \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=kmannth@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).