Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1389445
| From | Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCHSET v5] Make background writeback great again for the first time |
| Date | 2016-04-27 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rsCe7-5LS-31@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rsdz4-1JO-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <rsC4q-5HB-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote: >> Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked. >> When we do background buffered writeback, it should have little impact >> on foreground activity. That's the definition of background activity... >> But for as long as I can remember, heavy buffered writers have not >> behaved like that. For instance, if I do something like this: >> >> $ dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1M count=10k >> >> on my laptop, and then try and start chrome, it basically won't start >> before the buffered writeback is done. Or, for server oriented >> workloads, where installation of a big RPM (or similar) adversely >> impacts database reads or sync writes. When that happens, I get people >> yelling at me. >> >> I have posted plenty of results previously, I'll keep it shorter >> this time. Here's a run on my laptop, using read-to-pipe-async for >> reading a 5g file, and rewriting it. You can find this test program >> in the fio git repo. > > I have tested your patchset on my test system. Generally I have observed > noticeable drop in average throughput for heavy background writes without > any other disk activity and also somewhat increased variance in the > runtimes. It is most visible on this simple testcases: > > dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/file bs=1M count=10000 > > and > > dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/file bs=1M count=10000 conv=fsync > > The machine has 4GB of ram, /mnt is an ext3 filesystem that is freshly > created before each dd run on a dedicated disk. > > Without your patches I get pretty stable dd runtimes for both cases: > > dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/file bs=1M count=10000 > Runtimes: 87.9611 87.3279 87.2554 > > dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/file bs=1M count=10000 conv=fsync > Runtimes: 93.3502 93.2086 93.541 > > With your patches the numbers look like: > > dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/file bs=1M count=10000 > Runtimes: 108.183, 97.184, 99.9587 > > dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/file bs=1M count=10000 conv=fsync > Runtimes: 104.9, 102.775, 102.892 > > I have checked whether the variance is due to some interaction with CFQ > which is used for the disk. When I switched the disk to deadline, I still > get some variance although, the throughput is still ~10% lower: > > dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/file bs=1M count=10000 > Runtimes: 100.417 100.643 100.866 > > dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/file bs=1M count=10000 conv=fsync > Runtimes: 104.208 106.341 105.483 > > The disk is rotational SATA drive with writeback cache, queue depth of the > disk reported in /sys/block/sdb/device/queue_depth is 1. > > So I think we still need some tweaking on the low end of the storage > spectrum so that we don't lose 10% of throughput for simple cases like > this. Thanks for testing, Jan! I haven't tried old QD=1 SATA. I wonder if you are seeing smaller requests, and that is why it both varies and you get lower throughput? I'll try and setup a test here similar to yours. -- Jens Axboe
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCHSET v5] Make background writeback great again for the first time Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-04-26 18:00 +0200
[PATCH 6/8] block: add scalable completion tracking of requests Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-04-26 18:00 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v5] Make background writeback great again for the first time Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> - 2016-04-27 20:10 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v5] Make background writeback great again for the first time Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-04-27 20:20 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v5] Make background writeback great again for the first time Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2016-04-27 22:40 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v5] Make background writeback great again for the first time Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2016-04-27 23:00 +0200
Re: [PATCHSET v5] Make background writeback great again for the first time xiakaixu <xiakaixu@huawei.com> - 2016-04-28 06:10 +0200
csiph-web