lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Big I/O requests are split into small ones due to unaligned ext4 partition boundary?
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> From: Ming Lei [mailto:tom.leiming@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 20:43
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> > Hi, when I run "mkfs.ext4 /dev/sdc2" in a Linux virtual machine on Hyper-V,
>> > where a disk IOPS=500 limit is applied by me [0], the command takes much
>> > more time, if the ext4 partition boundary is not properly aligned:
>> >
>> > Example 1 [1]: it takes ~7 minutes with average wMB/s = 0.3 (slow)
>> > Example 2 [2]: it takes ~3.5 minutes with average wMB/s = 0.6 (slow)
>> > Example 3 [3]: it takes ~0.5 minute with average wMB/s = 4 (expected)
>> >
>> > strace shows the mkfs.ext3 program calls seek()/write() a lot and most of
>> > the writes use 32KB buffers (this should be big enough), and the program
>> > only invokes fsync() once, after it issues all the writes -- the fsync() takes
>> >>99% of the time.
>> >
>> > By logging SCSI commands, the SCSI Write(10) command is used here for the
>> > userspace 32KB write:
>> > in example 1, *each* command writes 1 or 2 sectors only (1 sector = 512
>> bytes);
>> > in example 2, *each* command writes 2 or 4 sectors only;
>> > in example 3, each command writes 1024 sectors.
>> >
>> > It looks the kernel block I/O layer can somehow split big user-space buffers
>> > into really small write requests (1, 2, and 4 sectors)?
>> > This looks really strange to me.
>> >
>> > Note: in my test, this strange issue happens to 4.4 and the mainline 4.9 kernels,
>> > but the stable 3.18.45 kernel doesn't have the issue, i.e. all the 3 above test
>> > examples can finish in ~0.5 minute.
>> >
>> > Any comment?
>>
>> I remember that we discussed this kind of issue, please see the discussion[1]
>> and check if the patch[2] can fix your issue.
>>
>> [1] http://marc.info/?t=145805525500002&r=1&w=2
>> [2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=145934325429152&w=2
>>
>> Ming
>
> Thank you very much, Ming! The patch can fix my issue!
> It looks your patch was not merged into the upstream somehow.
> Would you please submit the patch again?

Yeah, will do, and thanks for your test!



Thanks,
Ming Lei

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-12-16 06:42    [W:0.046 / U:0.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site