On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 11:28:35PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> This is to lift default readahead size to 512KB, which I believe yields
> more I/O throughput without noticeably increasing I/O latency for today's HDD.
>
Hi Fengguang,
I was doing a quick test with the patches. I was using fio to run some
sequential reader threads. I have got one access to one Lun from an HP
EVA. In my case it looks like with the patches throughput has come down.
Folllowing are the results.
Kernel=2.6.33-rc5 Workload=bsr iosched=cfq Filesz=1G bs=32K
AVERAGE
-------
job Set NR ReadBW(KB/s) MaxClat(us) WriteBW(KB/s) MaxClat(us)
--- --- -- ------------ ----------- ------------- -----------
bsr 3 1 141768 130965 0 0
bsr 3 2 131979 135402 0 0
bsr 3 4 132351 420733 0 0
bsr 3 8 133152 455434 0 0
bsr 3 16 130316 674499 0 0
Kernel=2.6.33-rc5-readahead Workload=bsr iosched=cfq Filesz=1G bs=32K
AVERAGE
-------
job Set NR ReadBW(KB/s) MaxClat(us) WriteBW(KB/s) MaxClat(us)
--- --- -- ------------ ----------- ------------- -----------
bsr 3 1 84749.3 53213 0 0
bsr 3 2 83189.7 157473 0 0
bsr 3 4 77583.3 330030 0 0
bsr 3 8 88545.7 378201 0 0
bsr 3 16 95331.7 482657 0 0
I run increasing number of sequential readers. File system is ext3 and
filesize is 1G.
I have run the tests 3 times (3sets) and taken the average of it.
Thanks
Vivek
> For example, for a 100MB/s and 8ms access time HDD:
>
> io_size KB access_time transfer_time io_latency util% throughput KB/s IOPS
> 4 8 0.04 8.04 0.49% 497.57 124.39
> 8 8 0.08 8.08 0.97% 990.33 123.79
> 16 8 0.16 8.16 1.92% 1961.69 122.61
> 32 8 0.31 8.31 3.76% 3849.62 120.30
> 64 8 0.62 8.62 7.25% 7420.29 115.94
> 128 8 1.25 9.25 13.51% 13837.84 108.11
> 256 8 2.50 10.50 23.81% 24380.95 95.24
> 512 8 5.00 13.00 38.46% 39384.62 76.92
> 1024 8 10.00 18.00 55.56% 56888.89 55.56
> 2048 8 20.00 28.00 71.43% 73142.86 35.71
> 4096 8 40.00 48.00 83.33% 85333.33 20.83
>
> The 128KB => 512KB readahead size boosts IO throughput from ~13MB/s to ~39MB/s, while
> merely increases IO latency from 9.25ms to 13.00ms.
>
> As for SSD, I find that Intel X25-M SSD desires large readahead size
> even for sequential reads (the first patch has benchmark details):
>
> rasize first run time/throughput second run time/throughput
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 4k 3.40038 s, 123 MB/s 3.42842 s, 122 MB/s
> 8k 2.7362 s, 153 MB/s 2.74528 s, 153 MB/s
> 16k 2.59808 s, 161 MB/s 2.58728 s, 162 MB/s
> 32k 2.50488 s, 167 MB/s 2.49138 s, 168 MB/s
> 64k 2.12861 s, 197 MB/s 2.13055 s, 197 MB/s
> 128k 1.92905 s, 217 MB/s 1.93176 s, 217 MB/s
> 256k 1.75896 s, 238 MB/s 1.78963 s, 234 MB/s
> 512k 1.67357 s, 251 MB/s 1.69112 s, 248 MB/s
> 1M 1.62115 s, 259 MB/s 1.63206 s, 257 MB/s
> 2M 1.56204 s, 269 MB/s 1.58854 s, 264 MB/s
> 4M 1.57949 s, 266 MB/s 1.57426 s, 266 MB/s
>
> As suggested by Linus, decrease default readahead size for small devices at the same time.
>
> [PATCH 01/11] readahead: limit readahead size for small devices
> [PATCH 02/11] readahead: bump up the default readahead size
> [PATCH 03/11] readahead: introduce {MAX|MIN}_READAHEAD_PAGES macros for ease of use
>
> The two other impacts of an enlarged readahead size are
>
> - memory footprint (caused by readahead miss)
> Sequential readahead hit ratio is pretty high regardless of max
> readahead size; the extra memory footprint is mainly caused by
> enlarged mmap read-around.
> I measured my desktop:
> - under Xwindow:
> 128KB readahead cache hit ratio = 143MB/230MB = 62%
> 512KB readahead cache hit ratio = 138MB/248MB = 55%
> - under console: (seems more stable than the Xwindow data)
> 128KB readahead cache hit ratio = 30MB/56MB = 53%
> 1MB readahead cache hit ratio = 30MB/59MB = 51%
> So the impact to memory footprint looks acceptable.
>
> - readahead thrashing
> It will now cost 1MB readahead buffer per stream. Memory tight systems
> typically do not run multiple streams; but if they do so, it should
> help I/O performance as long as we can avoid thrashing, which can be
> achieved with the following patches.
>
> [PATCH 04/11] readahead: replace ra->mmap_miss with ra->ra_flags
> [PATCH 05/11] readahead: retain inactive lru pages to be accessed soon
> [PATCH 06/11] readahead: thrashing safe context readahead
>
> This is a major rewrite of the readahead algorithm, so I did careful tests with
> the following tracing/stats patches:
>
> [PATCH 07/11] readahead: record readahead patterns
> [PATCH 08/11] readahead: add tracing event
> [PATCH 09/11] readahead: add /debug/readahead/stats
>
> I verified the new readahead behavior on various access patterns,
> as well as stress tested the thrashing safety, by running 300 streams
> with mem=128M.
>
> Only 2031/61325=3.3% readahead windows are thrashed (due to workload
> variation):
>
> # cat /debug/readahead/stats
> pattern readahead eof_hit cache_hit io sync_io mmap_io size async_size io_size
> initial 20 9 4 20 20 12 73 37 35
> subsequent 3 3 0 1 0 1 8 8 1
> context 61325 1 5479 61325 6788 5 14 2 13
> thrash 2031 0 1222 2031 2031 0 9 0 6
> around 235 90 142 235 235 235 60 0 19
> fadvise 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> random 223 133 0 91 91 1 1 0 1
> all 63837 236 6847 63703 9165 0 14 2 13
>
> And the readahead inside a single stream is working as expected:
>
> # grep streams-3162 /debug/tracing/trace
> streams-3162 [000] 8602.455953: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=287352+1, ra=287354+10-2, async=1) = 10
> streams-3162 [000] 8602.907873: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=287362+1, ra=287364+20-3, async=1) = 20
> streams-3162 [000] 8604.027879: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=287381+1, ra=287384+14-2, async=1) = 14
> streams-3162 [000] 8604.754722: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=287396+1, ra=287398+10-2, async=1) = 10
> streams-3162 [000] 8605.191228: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=287406+1, ra=287408+18-3, async=1) = 18
> streams-3162 [000] 8606.831895: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=287423+1, ra=287426+12-2, async=1) = 12
> streams-3162 [000] 8606.919614: readahead: readahead-thrash(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=287425+1, ra=287425+8-0, async=0) = 1
> streams-3162 [000] 8607.545016: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=287436+1, ra=287438+9-2, async=1) = 9
> streams-3162 [000] 8607.960039: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=287445+1, ra=287447+18-3, async=1) = 18
> streams-3162 [000] 8608.790973: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=287462+1, ra=287465+21-3, async=1) = 21
> streams-3162 [000] 8609.763138: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=287483+1, ra=287486+15-2, async=1) = 15
> streams-3162 [000] 8611.467401: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=287499+1, ra=287501+11-2, async=1) = 11
> streams-3162 [000] 8642.512413: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=288053+1, ra=288056+10-2, async=1) = 10
> streams-3162 [000] 8643.246618: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=288064+1, ra=288066+22-3, async=1) = 22
> streams-3162 [000] 8644.278613: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=288085+1, ra=288088+16-3, async=1) = 16
> streams-3162 [000] 8644.395782: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=288087+1, ra=288087+21-3, async=0) = 5
> streams-3162 [000] 8645.109918: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=288101+1, ra=288108+8-1, async=1) = 8
> streams-3162 [000] 8645.285078: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=288105+1, ra=288116+8-1, async=1) = 8
> streams-3162 [000] 8645.731794: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=288115+1, ra=288122+14-2, async=1) = 13
> streams-3162 [000] 8646.114250: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=288123+1, ra=288136+8-1, async=1) = 8
> streams-3162 [000] 8646.626320: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=288134+1, ra=288144+16-3, async=1) = 16
> streams-3162 [000] 8647.035721: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=288143+1, ra=288160+10-2, async=1) = 10
> streams-3162 [000] 8647.693082: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=288157+1, ra=288165+12-2, async=1) = 8
> streams-3162 [000] 8648.221368: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=288168+1, ra=288177+15-2, async=1) = 15
> streams-3162 [000] 8649.280800: readahead: readahead-context(dev=0:2, ino=0, req=288190+1, ra=288192+23-3, async=1) = 23
> [...]
>
> btw, Linus suggested to disable start-of-file readahead if lseek() has been called:
>
> [PATCH 10/11] readahead: dont do start-of-file readahead after lseek()
>
> At last, the updated context readahead will do more radix tree scans, so need
> to optimize radix_tree_prev_hole():
>
> [PATCH 11/11] radixtree: speed up next/prev hole search
>
> It will on average reduce 8*64 level-0 slot searches to 32 level-0 slot
> plus 8 level-1 node searches.
>
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
