> Il giorno 28 ott 2017, alle ore 10:37, Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
>
>>
>> Il giorno 27 ott 2017, alle ore 16:21, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
>>
>> On 10/27/2017 12:52 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>> [RESENDING, BECAUSE REJECTED BY THE VGER]
>>>
>>>> Il giorno 27 ott 2017, alle ore 08:22, Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Il 26/ott/2017 06:32 AM, "Jens Axboe" <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
>>>> On 10/24/2017 08:10 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Il giorno 24 ott 2017, alle ore 08:28, Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@xxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If memory serves it's actually slightly more complicated. If you are
>>>>>> using loops=<number> then I *think* (you'll have to check) you will
>>>>>> find that invalidation happens once per each loop start. However when
>>>>>> you use time_based to do the repetition there is essentially only one
>>>>>> "loop" (even though the job goes on forever) so loop actions only
>>>>>> happen right at the start of the job with that option (that's why I
>>>>>> put the scare quotes around "beginning" ;-).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for this additional, useful piece of information. Actually,
>>>>> this further, possibly different caching behavior makes me think that
>>>>> some extra comment in the manpage might be helpful.
>>>>
>>>> Would probably make sense to change 'invalidate' to be a range of
>>>> possible values:
>>>>
>>>> 0 As it is now, never invalidate
>>>> 1 As it is now, invalidate initially
>>>> once Same as '1', invalidate initially / once
>>>> open New value, invalidate on every open
>>>> close New value, invalidate on close
>>>>
>>>> as I can definitely see reasons why you would want to invalidate every
>>>> time you open the file.
>>>>
>>>> To do that, the 'invalidate' option should be changed from a
>>>> FIO_OPT_BOOL to a FIO_OPT_STR, and the above possible values should be
>>>> added as posval[] for that option.
>>>>
>>>> Compliment that with the an enum of ranges for the ovals:
>>>>
>>>> enum {
>>>> FIO_FILE_INVALIDATE_OFF = 0,
>>>> FIO_FILE_INVALIDATE_ONCE,
>>>> FIO_FILE_INVALIDATE_OPEN,
>>>> FIO_FILE_INVALIDATE_CLOSE
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> Hope this makes sense, should be trivial to add as most of the work is
>>>> already documented in this email :-). The remaining bits is just calling
>>>> file_invalidate_cache() in the proper locations,
>>>> td_io_{open,close}_file() would be prime candidates.
>>>>
>>>> IMO this solution would make things both clearer and more flexible
>>
>> See my followup, fio already does invalidates for each open. The
>> problem with time_based was that we just reset the file, we don't
>> close and re-open it. That was fixed in git:
>>
>> commit 0bcf41cdc22dfee6b3f3b2ba9a533b4b103c70c2
>> Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Thu Oct 26 12:08:20 2017 -0600
>>
>> io_u: re-invalidate cache when looping around without file open/close
>>
>> so current git should work for your test case. Please test.
>>
>
> Tested, it does solve the problem. As a side note, and if useful for
> you, the throughput is much higher with sequential reads and direct=0
> (4.14-rc5, virtual disk on an SSD). It happens because of merges,
> which seem to not occur with direct=1. I thought direct I/O skipped
> buffering, but still enjoyed features as request merging, but probably
> I'm just wrong.
>
Just to be clear, by much higher I mean ten times higher.
Thanks,
Paolo
> Thanks for addressing this caching issue,
> Paolo
>
>> --
>> Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
