[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Implementing NVMHCI...
    Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, Avi Kivity wrote:
    >>> - create a big file,
    >> Just creating a 5GB file in a 64KB filesystem was interesting - Windows
    >> was throwing out 256KB I/Os even though I was generating 1MB writes (and
    >> cached too). Looks like a paranoid IDE driver (qemu exposes a PIIX4).
    > Heh, ok. So the "big file" really only needed to be big enough to not be
    > cached, and 5GB was probably overkill. In fact, if there's some way to
    > blow the cache, you could have made it much smaller. But 5G certainly
    > works ;)

    I wanted to make sure my random writes later don't get coalesced. A 1GB
    file, half of which is cached (I used a 1GB guest), offers lots of
    chances for coalescing if Windows delays the writes sufficiently. At
    5GB, Windows can only cache 10% of the file, so it will be continuously

    > (a) Windows caches things with a 4kB granularity, so the 512-byte write
    > turned into a read-modify-write

    > You absolutely do _not_ want to manage memory in 16kB chunks (or 64kB for
    > your example!). It's a total disaster. Imagine what would happen to user
    > application performance if kmalloc() always returned 16kB-aligned chunks
    > of memory, all sized as integer multiples of 16kB? It would absolutely
    > _suck_. Sure, it would be fine for your large allocations, but any time
    > you handle strings, you'd allocate 16kB of memory for any small 5-byte
    > string. You'd have horrible cache behavior, and you'd run out of memory
    > much too quickly.
    > The same is true in the kernel. The single biggest memory user under
    > almost all normal loads is the disk cache. That _is_ the normal allocator
    > for any OS kernel. Everything else is almost details (ok, so Linux in
    > particular does cache metadata very aggressively, so the dcache and inode
    > cache are seldom "just details", but the page cache is still generally the
    > most important part).
    > So having a 16kB or 64kB granularity is a _disaster_. Which is why no sane
    > system does that. It's only useful if you absolutely _only_ work with
    > large files - ie you're a database server. For just about any other
    > workload, that kind of granularity is totally unnacceptable.
    > So doing a read-modify-write on a 1-byte (or 512-byte) write, when the
    > block size is 4kB is easy - we just have to do it anyway.
    > Doing a read-modify-write on a 4kB write and a 16kB (or 64kB) blocksize is
    > also _doable_, and from the IO pattern standpoint it is no different. But
    > from a memory allocation pattern standpoint it's a disaster - because now
    > you're always working with chunks that are just 'too big' to be good
    > building blocks of a reasonable allocator.
    > If you always allocate 64kB for file caches, and you work with lots of
    > small files (like a source tree), you will literally waste all your
    > memory.

    Well, no one is talking about 64KB granularity for in-core files. Like
    you noticed, Windows uses the mmu page size. We could keep doing that,
    and still have 16KB+ sector sizes. It just means a RMW if you don't
    happen to have the adjoining clean pages in cache.

    Sure, on a rotating disk that's a disaster, but we're talking SSD here,
    so while you're doubling your access time, you're doubling a fairly
    small quantity. The controller would do the same if it exposed smaller
    sectors, so there's no huge loss.

    We still lose on disk storage efficiency, but I'm guessing that a modern
    tree with some object files with debug information and a .git directory
    it won't be such a great hit. For more mainstream uses, it would be

    I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
    signature is too narrow to contain.

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-14 12:03    [W:0.024 / U:116.580 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site