lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4 v3] ext3/4: enhance fsync performance when using CFQ
Date
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> writes:

> On Wed, Apr 14 2010, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The previous two postings can be found here:
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/1/344
>> and here:
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/7/325
>>
>> 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 subsequently wait until its CFQ timeslice
>> has expired before the journal thread can run to actually commit data to
>> disk.
>>
>> The approach taken to solve this problem is to implement a blk_yield call,
>> which tells the I/O scheduler not to idle on this process' queue. The call
>> is made from the jbd[2] log_wait_commit function.
>>
>> This patch set addresses previous concerns that the sync-noidle workload
>> would be starved by keeping track of the average think time for that
>> workload and using that to decide whether or not to yield the queue.
>>
>> My testing showed nothing but improvements for mixed workloads, though I
>> wouldn't call the testing exhaustive. I'd still very much like feedback
>> on the approach from jbd/jbd2 developers. Finally, I will continue to do
>> performance analysis of the patches.
>
> This is starting to look better. Can you share what tests you did? I
> tried reproducing with fs_mark last time and could not.

Did you use the fs_mark command line I (think I) had posted? What
storage were you using?

I took Vivek's iostest and modified the mixed workload to do buffered
random reader, buffered sequential reader, and buffered writer for all
of 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16 threads each.

The initial problem was reported against iozone, which can show the
problem quite easily when run like so:
iozone -s 64 -e -f /mnt/test/iozone.0 -i 0 -+n

You can also just run iozone in auto mode, but that can take quite a
while to complete.

All of my tests for this round have been against a NetApp hardware
RAID. I wanted to test against a simple sata disk as well, but have
become swamped with other issues.

I'll include all of this information in the next patch posting. Sorry
about that.

Cheers,
Jeff


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-15 15:09    [W:0.081 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site