Re: [PATCH 0/1] qcow2: Skip copy-on-write when allocating a zero cluster

From: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org,
	Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] qcow2: Skip copy-on-write when allocating a zero cluster
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:31:58 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <w518sedz3td.fsf@maestria.local.igalia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200817101019.GD11402@linux.fritz.box>

On Mon 17 Aug 2020 12:10:19 PM CEST, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Since commit c8bb23cbdbe / QEMU 4.1.0 (and if the storage backend
>> allows it) writing to an image created with preallocation=metadata
>> can be slower (20% in my tests) than writing to an image with no
>> preallocation at all.
>
> A while ago we had a case where commit c8bb23cbdbe was actually
> reported as a major performance regression, so it's a big "it
> depends".
>
> XFS people told me that they consider this code a bad idea. Just
> because it's a specialised "write zeroes" operation, it's not
> necessarily fast on filesystems. In particular, on XFS, ZERO_RANGE
> causes a queue drain with O_DIRECT (probably hurts cases with high
> queue depths) and additionally even a page cache flush without
> O_DIRECT.
>
> So in a way this whole thing is a two-edged sword.

I see... on ext4 the improvements are clearly visible. Are we not
detecting this for xfs? We do have an s->is_xfs flag.

>> a) shall we include a warning in the documentation ("note that this
>> preallocation mode can result in worse performance")?
>
> To be honest, I don't really understand this case yet. With metadata
> preallocation, the clusters are already marked as allocated, so why
> would handle_alloc_space() even be called? We're not allocating new
> clusters after all?

It's not called, what happens is what you say below:

> Or are you saying that ZERO_RANGE + pwrite on a sparse file (= cluster
> allocation) is faster for you than just the pwrite alone (= writing to
> already allocated cluster)?

Yes, 20% faster in my tests (4KB random writes), but in the latter case
the cluster is already allocated only at the qcow2 level, not on the
filesystem. preallocation=falloc is faster than preallocation=metadata
(preallocation=off sits in the middle).

>> b) why don't we also initialize preallocated clusters with
>>    QCOW_OFLAG_ZERO? (at least when there's no subclusters involved,
>>    i.e. no backing file). This would make reading from them (and
>>    writing to them, after this patch) faster.
>
> Because the idea with metadata preallocation is that you don't have to
> perform any COW and update any metdata because everything is already
> allocated. If you set the zero flag, you get cluster allocations with
> COW again, defeating the whole purpose of the preallocation.

Fair enough.

Berto