On Jun 24, 2014, at 6:36 AM, Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jun 2014, Lukas Czerner wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:55:35 +0200 >> From: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> >> To: linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: [RFC][PATCH 0/1] ext4: Fix ext4_mb_normalize_request >> >> This is my first attempt to fix the ext4_mb_normalize_request() >> function in in ext4 which deals with file preallocations. >> >> This is not yet a final version as it needs more testing, however >> I'd like to see some suggestions. > > Does anyone have any comments on this and the related patch ? Comments inline. >> Currently there are couple of problems with ext4_mb_normalize_request(). >> >> - We're trying to normalize unwritten extents allocation which is >> entirely unnecessary, because user exactly knows what how much space >> he is going to need - no need for file system to do preallocations. >> >> - ext4_mb_normalize_request() unnecessarily divides bigger allocation >> requests to small ones (8MB). I believe that this is a bug rather >> than design. The reason that the large requests were broken into smaller ones is because it becomes increasingly difficult to find large contiguous extents as the filesystem becomes more full. If there was a single buddy bitmap for the whole filesystem then it would be possible to scan for e.g. 64MB extents of free blocks, but with the current code this may require loading up a new block bitmap for each allocation. It may be that with the optimizations that have been landed since the mballoc code was originally written (to cache the largest free extent in memory for each group) that this group descriptor walk may be fast enough to handle large allocations. In that case, the limit on the number of groups to scan for an allocation may need to be increased. >> - For smaller allocations (or smaller files) we do not even respect the >> fe_logical. Although we do respect it for bigger files. This is done so it is possible to pack many small allocations into a single large RAID stripe to avoid read-modify-write overhead. >> - Overall the logic within ext4_mb_normalize_request() is weird and >> no-one really understand why it is the way it is. >> >> Fix all of this by: >> >> - Disabling preallocation for unwritten extent allocation. However >> because the maximum size of the unwritten extent is one block smaller >> than written, in order to avoid unnecessary fragmentation we limit the >> request to EXT_INIT_MAX_LEN / 2 That should work out well. Once the extents are converted to initialized extents they can be merged, and this will also leave some room to split uninitialized extents if they are not completely overwritten. >> - Get rid of the "if table" in ext4_mb_normalize_request() and replace >> it with simply aligning the assumed end of the file up to power of >> two. But we still limit the allocation size to EXT4_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP. >> Also do this on file system block units to take into account different >> block sized file systems. We have a patch to make this table tunable, but in the end we never used anything other than the default power-of-two values, so I don't think it is a loss to remove this code. That said, it would actually be better to align with the s_stripe_width instead of the next power-of-two value. It is important to note that having more extents is not a significant performance impact if they are at least 4-8MB in size, but if the allocator causes read-modify-write on a RAID array can cut performance in half. >> It passes xfstests cleanly in default configuration, I've not tried any >> non-default options yet. >> >> I've tried to test how much it changes allocation. The test and some results >> can be found at >> >> http://people.redhat.com/lczerner/mballoc/ >> >> normalize.sh is the simple script I run and output.normalize_orig[34] >> contains result from the vanila 3.15.0 while output.normalize_patch[56] >> contains results with this patch. >> >> From the performance stand point I do not see any major differences except >> that untar seems to always generate better results (which might be because >> of bigger continuous extents). Actually, looking at the results, while the extent allocations look more "regular" with the patched code, the actual performance is significantly worse for some tests, both in terms of speed and in terms of free space fragmentation: orig3: patch5: [+] Fallocate test [+] Fallocate test real 0m0.216s real 0m0.290s user 0m0.000s user 0m0.001s sys 0m0.061s sys 0m0.037s Device: /dev/loop0 Device: /dev/loop0 Blocksize: 4096 bytes Blocksize: 4096 bytes Total blocks: 22282240 Total blocks: 22282240 Free blocks: 3535514 (15.9%) Free blocks: 3535512 (15.9%) Min. free extent: 32 KB Min. free extent: 32 KB Max. free extent: 2064256 KB Max. free extent: 2064256 KB Avg. free extent: 235700 KB Avg. free extent: 228096 KB orig3: patch5: [+] Copy linux source [+] Copy linux source real 4m17.888s real 5m24.326s user 0m2.265s user 0m2.486s sys 2m4.205s sys 2m34.918s Device: /dev/loop0 Device: /dev/loop0 Blocksize: 4096 bytes Blocksize: 4096 bytes Total blocks: 22282240 Total blocks: 22282240 Free blocks: 17536027 (78.7%) Free blocks: 17536042 (78.7%) Min. free extent: 4 KB Min. free extent: 4 KB Max. free extent: 2064256 KB Max. free extent: 2064256 KB Avg. free extent: 267724 KB Avg. free extent: 209384 KB orig3: patch5: [+] Untar linux source [+] Untar linux source real 3m34.945s real 3m43.807s user 0m3.459s user 0m3.687s sys 1m35.126s sys 1m42.839s Device: /dev/loop0 Device: /dev/loop0 Blocksize: 4096 bytes Blocksize: 4096 bytes Total blocks: 22282240 Total blocks: 22282240 Free blocks: 8852805 (39.7%) Free blocks: 8852831 (39.7%) Min. free extent: 4 KB Min. free extent: 4 KB Max. free extent: 2064256 KB Max. free extent: 2064256 KB Avg. free extent: 102936 KB Avg. free extent: 72120 KB The same is true for the "single dd" and "multiple dd" tests. The only one that shows somewhat better performance and fragmentation results is fsstress, but I wouldn't exactly call that representative of normal user workloads. >> Free space fragmentation seems to be about the same, however with the patch >> there seems to be less smaller free space extents and more bigger ones which >> is expected due to bigger preallocations (and I think it's a good thing). Hmm, this is exactly the opposite of what I see in the output files? >> The biggest difference which is obvious from the results is that extent tree >> is much smaller (sometimes five times smaller) with the patch. Except of the >> fallocate case because we now limit the requests to (EXT_INIT_MAX_LEN / 2) >> so we can not merge them - it might be worth experimenting with something >> smaller which is a factor of unwritten extent size. >> >> But as I said the extent tree is much smaller which means that the extents >> overall are bigger which again is a good thing. This becomes very obvious >> when we look at the extent tree of the image file (the last steps in the >> test). >> >> What do you think ? I definitely agree that there is work to be done to improve this code, but since the results are quite mixed I think it makes sense to separate out some of the changes into different patches and test them independently. That will simplify the isolation of which changes are affecting the performance. Cheers, Andreas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
