linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
	"Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [POC][PATCH] xfs: reduce ilock contention on buffered randrw workload
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 13:10:13 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190418031013.GX29573@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190416122240.GN29573@dread.disaster.area>

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:22:40PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:11:17AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:37:09AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2019-04-08 at 12:33 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Fri 05-04-19 08:17:30, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > FYI, I'm working on a range lock implementation that should both
> > > > > solve the performance issue and the reader starvation issue at the
> > > > > same time by allowing concurrent buffered reads and writes to
> > > > > different file ranges.
> > > > 
> > > > Are you aware of range locks Davidlohr has implemented [1]? It didn't get
> > > > merged because he had no in-tree user at the time (he was more aiming at
> > > > converting mmap_sem which is rather difficult). But the generic lock
> > > > implementation should be well usable.
> > > > 
> > > > Added Davidlohr to CC.
.....
> Fio randrw numbers on a single file on a pmem device on a 16p
> machine using 4kB AIO-DIO iodepth 128 w/ fio on 5.1.0-rc3:
> 
> 			IOPS read/write (direct IO)
> fio processes		rwsem			rangelock
>  1			78k / 78k		75k / 75k
>  2			131k / 131k		123k / 123k
>  4			267k / 267k		183k / 183k
>  8			372k / 372k		177k / 177k
>  16			315k / 315k		135k / 135k
....

> FWIW, I'm not convinced about the scalability of the rb/interval
> tree, to tell you the truth. We got rid of the rbtree in XFS for
> cache indexing because the multi-level pointer chasing was just too
> expensive to do under a spinlock - it's just not a cache efficient
> structure for random index object storage.

Yeah, definitely not convinced an rbtree is the right structure
here. Locking of the tree is the limitation....

> FWIW, I have basic hack to replace the i_rwsem in XFS with a full
> range read or write lock with my XFS range lock implementation so it
> just behaves like a rwsem at this point. It is not in any way
> optimised at this point. Numbers for same AIO-DIO test are:

Now the stuff I've been working on has the same interface as
Davidlohr's patch, so I can swap and change them without thinking
about it. It's still completely unoptimised, but:

			IOPS read/write (direct IO)
processes	rwsem		DB rangelock	XFS rangelock
 1		78k / 78k	75k / 75k	72k / 72k
 2		131k / 131k	123k / 123k	133k / 133k
 4		267k / 267k	183k / 183k	237k / 237k
 8		372k / 372k	177k / 177k	265k / 265k
 16		315k / 315k	135k / 135k	228k / 228k

It's still substantially faster than the interval tree code.

BTW, if I take away the rwsem serialisation altogether, this
test tops out at just under 500k/500k at 8 threads, and at 16
threads has started dropping off (~440k/440k). So the rwsem is
a scalability limitation at just 8 threads....

/me goes off and thinks more about adding optimistic lock coupling
to the XFS iext btree to get rid of the need for tree-wide
locking altogether

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

  reply	other threads:[~2019-04-18  3:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-04 16:57 Amir Goldstein
2019-04-04 21:17 ` Dave Chinner
2019-04-05 14:02   ` Amir Goldstein
2019-04-07 23:27     ` Dave Chinner
2019-04-08  9:02       ` Amir Goldstein
2019-04-08 14:11         ` Jan Kara
2019-04-08 17:41           ` Amir Goldstein
2019-04-09  8:26             ` Jan Kara
2019-04-08 11:03       ` Jan Kara
2019-04-22 10:55         ` Boaz Harrosh
2019-04-08 10:33   ` Jan Kara
2019-04-08 16:37     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-04-11  1:11       ` Dave Chinner
2019-04-16 12:22         ` Dave Chinner
2019-04-18  3:10           ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2019-04-18 18:21             ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-04-20 23:54               ` Dave Chinner
2019-05-03  4:17                 ` Dave Chinner
2019-05-03  5:17                   ` Dave Chinner

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=20190418031013.GX29573@dread.disaster.area \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
    --cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=dbueso@suse.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    --subject='Re: [POC][PATCH] xfs: reduce ilock contention on buffered randrw workload' \
    /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

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).