linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	"Berrocal, Eduardo" <eduardo.berrocal@intel.com>
Subject: dax writes on ext4 slower than direct-i/o?
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 16:49:41 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4g1g2i-9p1ZDqy596O-cbw3Gas2wdiv49EvM+b0i-1uLg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)

Hi all,

Eduardo raised a puzzling question about why dax yields lower iops
than direct-i/o. The expectation is the reverse, i.e. that direct-i/o
should be slightly slower than dax due to block layer overhead. This
holds true for xfs, but on ext4 dax yields half the iops of direct-i/o
for an fio 4K random write workload.

Here is a relative graph of ext4: dax + direct-i/o vs xfs: dax + direct-i/o

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/56363/62172754-40c01e00-b2e8-11e9-8e4e-29e09940a171.jpg

A relative perf profile seems to show more time in
ext4_journal_start() which I thought may be due to atime or mtime
updates, but those do not seem to be the source of the extra journal
I/O.

The urgency is a curiosity at this point, but I expect an end user
might soon ask whether this is an expected implementation side-effect
of dax.

Thanks in advance for any insight, and/or experiment ideas for us to go try.

Eduardo collected perf reports of these runs here:

https://github.com/pmem/ndctl/files/3449231/linux_5.3.2_perf.zip

...and the fio configuration is here:

https://gist.github.com/djbw/e5e69cbccbaaf0f43ecde127393c305c

             reply	other threads:[~2019-07-30 23:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-30 23:49 Dan Williams [this message]
2019-08-02 14:43 ` dax writes on ext4 slower than direct-i/o? Jan Kara
2019-08-02 15:38   ` Dan Williams

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=CAPcyv4g1g2i-9p1ZDqy596O-cbw3Gas2wdiv49EvM+b0i-1uLg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=eduardo.berrocal@intel.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    /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).