Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1368919
| From | Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck |
| Date | 2016-04-01 03:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <riVBo-4M2-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <ripUS-7fj-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <riG9l-29W-35@gated-at.bofh.it> <riLLH-6lZ-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <riNDP-7LE-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:21:04AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 03/31/2016 08:29 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>What I see in these performance dips is the XFS transaction > >>subsystem stalling *completely* - instead of running at a steady > >>state of around 350,000 transactions/s, there are *zero* > >>transactions running for periods of up to ten seconds. This > >>co-incides with the CPU usage falling to almost zero as well. > >>AFAICT, the only thing that is running when the filesystem stalls > >>like this is memory reclaim. > > > >I'll take a look at this, stalls should definitely not be occurring. How > >much memory does the box have? > > I can't seem to reproduce this at all. On an nvme device, I get a > fairly steady 60K/sec file creation rate, and we're nowhere near > being IO bound. So the throttling has no effect at all. That's too slow to show the stalls - your likely concurrency bound in allocation by the default AG count (4) from mkfs. Use mkfs.xfs -d agcount=32 so that every thread works in it's own AG. > On a raid0 on 4 flash devices, I get something that looks more IO > bound, for some reason. Still no impact of the throttling, however. > But given that your setup is this: > > virtio in guest, XFS direct IO -> no-op -> scsi in host. > > we do potentially have two throttling points, which we don't want. > Is both the guest and the host running the new code, or just the > guest? Just the guest. Host is running a 4.2.x kernel, IIRC. > In any case, can I talk you into trying with two patches on top of > the current code? It's the two newest patches here: > > http://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/log/?h=wb-buf-throttle > > The first treats REQ_META|REQ_PRIO like they should be treated, like > high priority IO. The second disables throttling for virtual > devices, so we only throttle on the backend. The latter should > probably be the other way around, but we need some way of conveying > that information to the backend. I'm not changing the host kernels - it's a production machine and so it runs long uptime testing of stable kernels. (e.g. catch slow memory leaks, etc). So if you've disabled throttling in the guest, I can't test the throttling changes. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-03-30 17:20 +0200
[PATCH 3/9] writeback: use WRITE_SYNC for reclaim or sync writeback Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-03-30 17:20 +0200
[PATCH 6/9] sd: inform block layer of write cache state Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-03-30 17:20 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-03-31 10:30 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-03-31 16:30 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-03-31 18:30 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-04-01 03:00 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-04-01 05:30 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-04-01 05:40 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-04-01 05:40 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-04-01 08:20 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-04-01 16:40 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-04-01 07:10 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-04-01 02:50 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-04-01 05:30 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-04-01 08:30 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-04-01 16:40 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Holger Hoffstätte <holger.hoffstaette@googlemail.com> - 2016-04-01 00:20 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-04-01 03:10 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Holger Hoffstätte <holger.hoffstaette@googlemail.com> - 2016-04-01 19:10 +0200
csiph-web