From: Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Joseph Qi <jiangqi903@gmail.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>,
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, 23 Aug 2019 21:08:53 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <707b1a60-00f0-847e-02f9-e63d20eab47e@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190823101623.GV7777@dread.disaster.area>
On 19/8/23 18:16, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 03:57:02PM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> On 19/8/22 13:40, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 09:04:57AM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>>> Hi Ted,
>>>>
>>>> On 19/8/21 00:08, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:00:39AM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've tested parallel dio reads with dioread_nolock, it doesn't have
>>>>>> significant performance improvement and still poor compared with reverting
>>>>>> parallel dio reads. IMO, this is because with parallel dio reads, it take
>>>>>> inode shared lock at the very beginning in ext4_direct_IO_read().
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that a problem? It's a shared lock, so parallel threads should
>>>>> be able to issue reads without getting serialized?
>>>>>
>>>> The above just tells the result that even mounting with dioread_nolock,
>>>> parallel dio reads still has poor performance than before (w/o parallel
>>>> dio reads).
>>>>
>>>>> Are you using sufficiently fast storage devices that you're worried
>>>>> about cache line bouncing of the shared lock? Or do you have some
>>>>> other concern, such as some other thread taking an exclusive lock?
>>>>>
>>>> The test case is random read/write described in my first mail. And
>>>
>>> Regardless of dioread_nolock, ext4_direct_IO_read() is taking
>>> inode_lock_shared() across the direct IO call. And writes in ext4
>>> _always_ take the inode_lock() in ext4_file_write_iter(), even
>>> though it gets dropped quite early when overwrite && dioread_nolock
>>> is set. But just taking the lock exclusively in write fro a short
>>> while is enough to kill all shared locking concurrency...
>>>
>>>> from my preliminary investigation, shared lock consumes more in such
>>>> scenario.
>>>
>>> If the write lock is also shared, then there should not be a
>>> scalability issue. The shared dio locking is only half-done in ext4,
>>> so perhaps comparing your workload against XFS would be an
>>> informative exercise...
>>
>> I've done the same test workload on xfs, it behaves the same as ext4
>> after reverting parallel dio reads and mounting with dioread_lock.
>
> Ok, so the problem is not shared locking scalability ('cause that's
> what XFS does and it scaled fine), the problem is almost certainly
> that ext4 is using exclusive locking during writes...
>
Agree. Maybe I've misled you in my previous mails.I meant shared lock makes worse in case of mixed random read/write, since
we would always take inode lock during write.
And it also conflicts with dioread_nolock. It won't take any inode lock
before with dioread_nolock during read, but now it always takes a shared
lock.
Thanks,
Joseph
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-23 13:09 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
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 [this message]
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=707b1a60-00f0-847e-02f9-e63d20eab47e@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=adilger@dilger.ca \
--cc=bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jiangqi903@gmail.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).