lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch,rfc v2] ext3/4: enhance fsync performance when using cfq
On Thu, Apr 08 2010, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 01:00:45PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 07 2010, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > > Hi again,
> > >
> > > So, here's another stab at fixing this. This patch is very much an RFC,
> > > so do not pull it into anything bound for Linus. ;-) For those new to
> > > this topic, here is the original posting: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/1/344
> > >
> > > The basic problem is that, when running iozone on smallish files (up to
> > > 8MB in size) and including fsync in the timings, deadline outperforms
> > > CFQ by a factor of about 5 for 64KB files, and by about 10% for 8MB
> > > files. From examining the blktrace data, it appears that iozone will
> > > issue an fsync() call, and will have to wait until it's CFQ timeslice
> > > has expired before the journal thread can run to actually commit data to
> > > disk.
> > >
> > > The approach below puts an explicit call into the filesystem-specific
> > > fsync code to yield the disk so that the jbd[2] process has a chance to
> > > issue I/O. This bring performance of CFQ in line with deadline.
> > >
> > > There is one outstanding issue with the patch that Vivek pointed out.
> > > Basically, this could starve out the sync-noidle workload if there is a
> > > lot of fsync-ing going on. I'll address that in a follow-on patch. For
> > > now, I wanted to get the idea out there for others to comment on.
> > >
> > > Thanks a ton to Vivek for spotting the problem with the initial
> > > approach, and for his continued review.
> >
> > I like the concept, it's definitely useful (and your results amply
> > demonstrate that). I was thinking if there was a way in through the ioc
> > itself, rather than bdi -> queue and like you are doing. But I can't
> > think of a nice way to do it, so this is probably as good as it gets.
> >
>
> I think, one issue with ioc based approach will be that it will then call
> yield operation on all the devices in the system where this context has ever
> done any IO. With bdi based approach this call will remain limited to
> a smaller set of devices.

Oh, you'd want the bdi as well. And as I said, I don't think it was
workable, just trying to think it over and consider potentially other
ways to accomplish this.

At one point I had a patch that did the equivalant of this yield on
being scheduled out on the CPU side, which is probably why I was in the
ioc mindset.

--
Jens Axboe



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-08 16:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site