lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: VFS scalability git tree
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:55:14PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 05:01:00AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > I'm pleased to announce I have a git tree up of my vfs scalability work.
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/npiggin/linux-npiggin.git
> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/npiggin/linux-npiggin.git
> >
> > Branch vfs-scale-working
>
> With a production build (i.e. no lockdep, no xfs debug), I'll
> run the same fs_mark parallel create/unlink workload to show
> scalability as I ran here:
>
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2010-05/msg00329.html

I've made a similar setup, 2s8c machine, but using 2GB ramdisk instead
of a real disk (I don't have easy access to a good disk setup ATM, but
I guess we're more interested in code above the block layer anyway).

Made an XFS on /dev/ram0 with 16 ags, 64MB log, otherwise same config as
yours.

I found that performance is a little unstable, so I sync and echo 3 >
drop_caches between each run. When it starts reclaiming memory, things
get a bit more erratic (and XFS seemed to be almost livelocking for tens
of seconds in inode reclaim). So I started with 50 runs of fs_mark
-n 20000 (which did not cause reclaim), rebuilding a new filesystem
between every run.

That gave the following files/sec numbers:
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 50 100986.4 127622 125013.4 123248.82 5244.1988
+ 50 100967.6 135918.6 130214.9 127926.94 6374.6975
Difference at 95.0% confidence
4678.12 +/- 2316.07
3.79567% +/- 1.87919%
(Student's t, pooled s = 5836.88)

This is 3.8% in favour of vfs-scale-working.

I then did 10 runs of -n 20000 but with -L 4 (4 iterations) which did
start to fill up memory and cause reclaim during the 2nd and subsequent
iterations.

N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 10 116919.7 126785.7 123279.2 122245.17 3169.7993
+ 10 110985.1 132440.7 130122.1 126573.41 7151.2947
No difference proven at 95.0% confidence

x 10 75820.9 105934.9 79521.7 84263.37 11210.173
+ 10 75698.3 115091.7 82932 93022.75 16725.304
No difference proven at 95.0% confidence

x 10 66330.5 74950.4 69054.5 69102 2335.615
+ 10 68348.5 74231.5 70728.2 70879.45 1838.8345
No difference proven at 95.0% confidence

x 10 59353.8 69813.1 67416.7 65164.96 4175.8209
+ 10 59670.7 77719.1 74326.1 70966.02 6469.0398
Difference at 95.0% confidence
5801.06 +/- 5115.66
8.90212% +/- 7.85033%
(Student's t, pooled s = 5444.54)

vfs-scale-working was ahead at every point, but the results were
too erratic to read much into it (even the last point I think is
questionable).

I can provide raw numbers or more details on the setup if required.


> enabled. ext4 is using default mkfs and mount parameters except for
> barrier=0. All numbers are averages of three runs.
>
> fs_mark rate (thousands of files/second)
> 2.6.35-rc5 2.6.35-rc5-scale
> threads xfs ext4 xfs ext4
> 1 20 39 20 39
> 2 35 55 35 57
> 4 60 41 57 42
> 8 79 9 75 9
>
> ext4 is getting IO bound at more than 2 threads, so apart from
> pointing out that XFS is 8-9x faster than ext4 at 8 thread, I'm
> going to ignore ext4 for the purposes of testing scalability here.
>
> For XFS w/ delayed logging, 2.6.35-rc5 is only getting to about 600%
> CPU and with Nick's patches it's about 650% (10% higher) for
> slightly lower throughput. So at this class of machine for this
> workload, the changes result in a slight reduction in scalability.

I wonder if these results are stable. It's possible that changes in
reclaim behaviour are causing my patches to require more IO for a
given unit of work?

I was seeing XFS 'livelock' in reclaim more with my patches, it
could be due to more parallelism now being allowed from the vfs and
reclaim.

Based on my above numbers, I don't see that rcu-inodes is causing a
problem, and in terms of SMP scalability, there is really no way that
vanilla is more scalable, so I'm interested to see where this slowdown
is coming from.


> I looked at dbench on XFS as well, but didn't see any significant
> change in the numbers at up to 200 load threads, so not much to
> talk about there.

On a smaller system, dbench doesn't bottleneck too much. It's more of
a test to find shared cachelines and such on larger systems when you're
talking about several GB/s bandwidths.

Thanks,
Nick



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-27 09:09    [W:0.262 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site