linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
To: Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Joseph Qi <jiangqi903@gmail.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	Xiaoguang Wang <xiaoguang.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
	Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] performance regression with "ext4: Allow parallel DIO reads"
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 19:57:29 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <A7FF6ED7-D480-4B01-A812-E100D595C515@dilger.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15112e38-94fe-39d6-a8e2-064ff47187d5@linux.alibaba.com>

It would be useful to post some details about your test hardware
(eg. HDD vs. SSD, CPU cores+speed, RAM), so that it is possible to make
a good comparison of someone sees different results. 

Cheers, Andreas

> On Jul 25, 2019, at 19:12, Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 19/7/26 05:20, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jul 23, 2019, at 5:17 AM, Joseph Qi <jiangqi903@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Ted & Jan,
>>> Could you please give your valuable comments?
>> 
>> It seems like the original patches should be reverted?  There is no data
> 
> From my test result, yes.
> I've also tested libaio with iodepth 16, it behaves the same. Here is the test
> data for libaio 4k randrw:
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> w/ parallel dio reads | READ 78313KB/s, 19578, 1698.70us  | WRITE 78313KB/s, 19578, 4837.60us
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> w/o parallel dio reads| READ 387774KB/s, 96943, 1009.73us | WRITE 387656KB/s,96914, 308.87us
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Since this commit went into upstream long time ago,to be precise, Linux
> 4.9, I wonder if someone else has also observed this regression, or
> anything I missed?
> 
> Thanks,
> Joseph
> 
>> in the original commit message that indicates there is an actual performance
>> improvement from that patch, but there is data here showing it hurts both
>> read and write performance quite significantly.
>>> Cheers, Andreas
>> 
>>>> On 19/7/19 17:22, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>>> Hi Ted & Jan,
>>>> I've observed an significant performance regression with the following
>>>> commit in my Intel P3600 NVMe SSD.
>>>> 16c54688592c ext4: Allow parallel DIO reads
>>>> 
>>>> From my initial investigation, it may be because of the
>>>> inode_lock_shared (down_read) consumes more than inode_lock (down_write)
>>>> in mixed random read write workload.
>>>> 
>>>> Here is my test result.
>>>> 
>>>> ioengine=psync
>>>> direct=1
>>>> rw=randrw
>>>> iodepth=1
>>>> numjobs=8
>>>> size=20G
>>>> runtime=600
>>>> 
>>>> w/ parallel dio reads : kernel 5.2.0
>>>> w/o parallel dio reads: kernel 5.2.0, then revert the following commits:
>>>> 1d39834fba99 ext4: remove EXT4_STATE_DIOREAD_LOCK flag (related)
>>>> e5465795cac4 ext4: fix off-by-one error when writing back pages before dio read (related)
>>>> 16c54688592c ext4: Allow parallel DIO reads
>>>> 
>>>> bs=4k:
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> w/ parallel dio reads | READ 30898KB/s, 7724, 555.00us   | WRITE 30875KB/s, 7718, 479.70us
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> w/o parallel dio reads| READ 117915KB/s, 29478, 248.18us | WRITE 117854KB/s,29463, 21.91us
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> bs=16k:
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> w/ parallel dio reads | READ 58961KB/s, 3685, 835.28us   | WRITE 58877KB/s, 3679, 1335.98us
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> w/o parallel dio reads| READ 218409KB/s, 13650, 554.46us | WRITE 218257KB/s,13641, 29.22us
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> bs=64k:
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> w/ parallel dio reads | READ 119396KB/s, 1865, 1759.38us | WRITE 119159KB/s, 1861, 2532.26us
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> w/o parallel dio reads| READ 422815KB/s, 6606, 1146.05us | WRITE 421619KB/s, 6587, 60.72us
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> bs=512k:
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> w/ parallel dio reads | READ 392973KB/s, 767, 5046.35us  | WRITE 393165KB/s, 767, 5359.86us
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> w/o parallel dio reads| READ 590266KB/s, 1152, 4312.01us | WRITE 590554KB/s, 1153, 2606.82us
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> bs=1M:
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> w/ parallel dio reads | READ 487779KB/s, 476, 8058.55us  | WRITE 485592KB/s, 474, 8630.51us
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> w/o parallel dio reads| READ 593927KB/s, 580, 7623.63us  | WRITE 591265KB/s, 577, 6163.42us
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Joseph
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers, Andreas
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

  reply	other threads:[~2019-07-27  1:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-19  9:22 [RFC] performance regression with "ext4: Allow parallel DIO reads" Joseph Qi
2019-07-23 11:17 ` Joseph Qi
2019-07-25 21:20   ` Andreas Dilger
2019-07-26  1:12     ` Joseph Qi
2019-07-27  1:57       ` Andreas Dilger [this message]
2019-07-27  2:16         ` Joseph Qi
2019-07-28 22:51       ` Dave Chinner
2019-07-30  1:34         ` Joseph Qi
2019-08-15 15:13           ` Jan Kara
2019-08-16 13:23             ` Joseph Qi
2019-08-16 14:57               ` Jan Kara
2019-08-20  3:00                 ` Joseph Qi
2019-08-20 16:08                   ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-08-21  1:04                     ` Joseph Qi
2019-08-21  3:34                       ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-08-22  6:45                         ` Joseph Qi
2019-08-22  5:40                       ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-23  7:57                         ` Joseph Qi
2019-08-23  8:07                           ` Joseph Qi
2019-08-23 10:16                           ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-23 13:08                             ` Joseph Qi
2019-08-24  2:18                               ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-26  8:39                                 ` Jan Kara
2019-08-26 19:10                                   ` Andreas Dilger
2019-08-27  1:00                                     ` Joseph Qi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=A7FF6ED7-D480-4B01-A812-E100D595C515@dilger.ca \
    --to=adilger@dilger.ca \
    --cc=bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=jiangqi903@gmail.com \
    --cc=joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=xiaoguang.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).