From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Ted Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>,
Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>,
Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com>,
Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: [PATCH 0/5 v3] ext4: Fix performance regression with mballoc
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2022 11:21:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220908091301.147-1-jack@suse.cz> (raw)
Hello,
Here is the third version of my mballoc improvements to avoid spreading
allocations with mb_optimize_scan=1. Since v2 there are only small changes and
fixes found during review and testing. Overall the series looks mostly ready to
go, I just didn't see any comments regarding patch 3 - a fix of metabg handling
in the Orlov allocator which is kind of independent, I've just found it when
reading the code. Also patch 5 needs final review after all the fixes.
Changes since v1:
- reworked data structure for CR 1 scan
- make small closed files use locality group preallocation
- fix metabg handling in the Orlov allocator
Changes since v2:
- whitespace fixes
- fix outdated comment
- fix handling of mb_structs_summary procfs file
- fix bad unlock on error recovery path
Original cover letter:
The patches fix the performance regression I was able to reproduce with reaim
on my test machine:
mb_optimize_scan=0 mb_optimize_scan=1 patched
Hmean disk-1 2076.12 ( 0.00%) 2099.37 ( 1.12%) 2032.52 ( -2.10%)
Hmean disk-41 92481.20 ( 0.00%) 83787.47 * -9.40%* 90308.37 ( -2.35%)
Hmean disk-81 155073.39 ( 0.00%) 135527.05 * -12.60%* 154285.71 ( -0.51%)
Hmean disk-121 185109.64 ( 0.00%) 166284.93 * -10.17%* 185298.62 ( 0.10%)
Hmean disk-161 229890.53 ( 0.00%) 207563.39 * -9.71%* 232883.32 * 1.30%*
Hmean disk-201 223333.33 ( 0.00%) 203235.59 * -9.00%* 221446.93 ( -0.84%)
Hmean disk-241 235735.25 ( 0.00%) 217705.51 * -7.65%* 239483.27 * 1.59%*
Hmean disk-281 266772.15 ( 0.00%) 241132.72 * -9.61%* 263108.62 ( -1.37%)
Hmean disk-321 265435.50 ( 0.00%) 245412.84 * -7.54%* 267277.27 ( 0.69%)
The changes also significanly reduce spreading of allocations for small /
moderately sized files. I'm not able to measure a performance difference
resulting from this but on eMMC storage this seems to be the main culprit
of reduced performance. Untarring of raspberry-pi archive touches following
numbers of groups:
mb_optimize_scan=0 mb_optimize_scan=1 patched
groups 4 22 7
To achieve this I have added two more changes on top of v1 - patches 4 and 5.
Patch 4 makes sure we use locality group preallocation even for files that are
not likely to grow anymore (previously we have disabled all preallocations for
such files, however locality group preallocation still makes a lot of sense for
such files). This patch reduced spread of a small file allocations but larger
file allocations were still spread significantly because they avoid locality
group preallocation and as they are not power-of-two in size, they also
immediately start with cr=1 scan. To address that I've changed the data
structure for looking up the best block group to allocate from (see patch 5
for details).
Honza
Previous versions:
Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/20220823134508.27854-1-jack@suse.cz # v1
Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/20220906150803.375-1-jack@suse.cz # v2
next reply other threads:[~2022-09-08 9:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-08 9:21 Jan Kara [this message]
2022-09-08 9:21 ` [PATCH 1/5] ext4: Make mballoc try target group first even with mb_optimize_scan Jan Kara
2022-09-22 2:52 ` Theodore Ts'o
2022-09-22 9:15 ` Jan Kara
2022-09-26 9:11 ` Jan Kara
2022-09-26 17:32 ` Theodore Ts'o
2022-09-08 9:21 ` [PATCH 2/5] ext4: Avoid unnecessary spreading of allocations among groups Jan Kara
2022-09-08 9:21 ` [PATCH 3/5] ext4: Make directory inode spreading reflect flexbg size Jan Kara
2022-09-08 9:21 ` [PATCH 4/5] ext4: Use locality group preallocation for small closed files Jan Kara
2022-09-08 9:21 ` [PATCH 5/5] ext4: Use buckets for cr 1 block scan instead of rbtree Jan Kara
2022-09-09 6:12 ` Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2022-09-08 10:36 ` [PATCH 0/5 v3] ext4: Fix performance regression with mballoc Stefan Wahren
2022-09-09 10:40 ` Jan Kara
2022-09-11 12:32 ` Stefan Wahren
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=20220908091301.147-1-jack@suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ojaswin@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=regressions@leemhuis.info \
--cc=stefan.wahren@i2se.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.