From: Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com>
To: suparna@in.ibm.com, akpm@osdl.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-aio@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][2.6-mm] Readahead issues and AIO read speedup
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:01:01 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200308070901.01119.pbadari@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030807100120.GA5170@in.ibm.com>
Suparna,
I noticed the exact same thing while testing on database benchmark
on filesystems (without AIO). I added instrumentation in scsi layer to
record the IO pattern and I found that we are doing lots of (4million)
4K reads, in my benchmark run. I was tracing that and found that all
those reads are generated by slow read path, since readahead window
is maximally shrunk. When I forced the readahead code to read 16k
(my database pagesize), in case ra window closed - I see 20% improvement
in my benchmark. I asked "Ramchandra Pai" (linuxram@us.ibm.com)
to investigate it further.
Thanks,
Badari
On Thursday 07 August 2003 03:01 am, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> I noticed a problem with the way do_generic_mapping_read
> and readahead works for the case of large reads, especially
> random reads. This was leading to very inefficient behaviour
> for a stream for AIO reads. (See the results a little later
> in this note)
>
> 1) We should be reading ahead at least the pages that are
> required by the current read request (even if the ra window
> is maximally shrunk). I think I've seen this in 2.4 - we
> seem to have lost that in 2.5.
> The result is that sometimes (large random reads) we end
> up doing reads one page at a time waiting for it to complete
> being reading the next page and so on, even for a large read.
> (until we buildup a readahead window again)
>
> 2) Once the ra window is maximally shrunk, the responsibility
> for reading the pages and re-building the window is shifted
> to the slow path in read, which breaks down in the case of
> a stream of AIO reads where multiple iocbs submit reads
> to the same file rather than serialise the wait for i/o
> completion.
>
> So here is a patch that fixes this by making sure we do
> (1) and pushing up the handle_ra_miss calls for the maximally
> shrunk case before the loop that waits for I/O completion.
>
> Does it make a difference ? A lot, actually.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-08-07 16:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-08-07 10:01 [PATCH][2.6-mm] Readahead issues and AIO read speedup Suparna Bhattacharya
2003-08-07 16:01 ` Badari Pulavarty [this message]
2003-08-07 16:28 ` Andrew Morton
2003-08-07 17:21 ` Badari Pulavarty
2003-08-07 17:39 ` Andrew Morton
2003-08-07 20:41 ` Badari Pulavarty
2003-08-07 20:58 ` Andrew Morton
2003-08-08 13:56 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2003-08-13 21:06 ` Ram Pai
2003-09-23 0:41 ` Ram Pai
2003-08-07 19:36 ` Joel Becker
2003-08-08 5:42 ` Jens Axboe
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=200308070901.01119.pbadari@us.ibm.com \
--to=pbadari@us.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-aio@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=suparna@in.ibm.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).