linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <wfg@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix readahead pipeline break caused by block plug
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:03:33 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120131220333.GD4378@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1327996780.21268.42.camel@sli10-conroe>

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 03:59:40PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl reported a performance regression since 2.6.39. The test
> is a simple dd read, but with big block size. The reason is:
> 
> T1: ra (A, A+128k), (A+128k, A+256k)
> T2: lock_page for page A, submit the 256k
> T3: hit page A+128K, ra (A+256k, A+384). the range isn't submitted
> because of plug and there isn't any lock_page till we hit page A+256k
> because all pages from A to A+256k is in memory
> T4: hit page A+256k, ra (A+384, A+ 512). Because of plug, the range isn't
> submitted again.
> T5: lock_page A+256k, so (A+256k, A+512k) will be submitted. The task is
> waitting for (A+256k, A+512k) finish.
> 
> There is no request to disk in T3 and T4, so readahead pipeline breaks.
> 
> We really don't need block plug for generic_file_aio_read() for buffered
> I/O. The readahead already has plug and has fine grained control when I/O
> should be submitted. Deleting plug for buffered I/O fixes the regression.
> 
> One side effect is plug makes the request size 256k, the size is 128k
> without it. This is because default ra size is 128k and not a reason we
> need plug here.

For me, this patch helps only so much and does not get back all the
performance lost in case of raw disk read. It does improve the throughput
from around 85-90 MB/s to 110-120 MB/s but running the same dd with
iflag=direct, gets me more than 250MB/s.

# echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches 
# dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1K
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 9.03305 s, 119 MB/s

echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches 
# dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1K iflag=direct
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 4.07426 s, 264 MB/s

I think it is happening because in case of raw read we are submitting
one page at a time to request queue and by the time all the pages
are submitted and one big merged request is formed it wates lot of time.

In case of direct IO, we are getting bigger IOs at request queue so
less cpu overhead, less idling on queue.

I created ext4 filesystem on same SSD and did the buffered read and
that seems to work just fine. Now I am getting bigger requests at
the request queue. (128K, 256 sectors).

[root@chilli common]# echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches 
[root@chilli common]# dd if=zerofile-4G of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1K
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 4.09186 s, 262 MB/s

Anyway, remvoing top level plug in case of buffered reads sounds
reasonable.

Thanks
Vivek

  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-01-31 22:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-01-31  7:59 [PATCH] fix readahead pipeline break caused by block plug Shaohua Li
2012-01-31  8:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-31  8:48 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-31  8:50   ` Herbert Poetzl
2012-01-31  8:53   ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-31  9:17     ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-31 10:20 ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-31 10:34 ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-31 10:46   ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-31 10:57     ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-31 11:34       ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-31 11:42         ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-31 11:57           ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-31 12:20             ` Wu Fengguang
2012-02-01  2:25   ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-31 14:47 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-31 20:23   ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-31 22:03 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2012-01-31 22:13   ` Andrew Morton
2012-01-31 22:22     ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-01  3:36       ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-01  7:10         ` Wu Fengguang
2012-02-01 16:01           ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-01  9:18         ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-02-01 20:10           ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-01 20:13             ` Jeff Moyer
2012-02-01 20:22             ` Andrew Morton
2012-02-01  7:02   ` Wu Fengguang

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=20120131220333.GD4378@redhat.com \
    --to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=herbert@13thfloor.at \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
    --cc=wfg@linux.intel.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).