On Wed 09-11-11 18:44:59, Jan Kara wrote: > Hello, > > this is a fourth iteration of my series improving handling of sync syscall. > Since previous submission I have slightly improved cleaned up iteration loops > so that we don't have to pass void * around. Christoph also asked about why > we do non-blocking ->sync_fs() pass. My answer to it was: > > I did also measurements where non-blocking ->sync_fs was removed and I didn't > see any regression with ext3, ext4, xfs, or btrfs. OTOH I can imagine *some* > filesystem can do an equivalent of filemap_fdatawrite() on some metadata for > non-blocking ->sync_fs and filemap_fdatawrite_and_wait() on the blocking one > and if there are more such filesystems on different backing storages the > performance difference can be noticeable (actually, checking the filesystems, > JFS and Ceph seem to be doing something like this). So I that's why I didn't > include the change in the end... > > So Christoph, if you think we should get rid of non-blocking ->sync_fs, I can > include the patch but personally I think it has some use. Arguably a cleaner > interface for the users will be something like two methods ->sync_fs_begin > and ->sync_fs_end. Filesystems that don't have much to optimize in ->sync_fs() > would just use one of these functions. Ping? Any comments to this patch set? I'd like to get it merged eventually :) Honza > I have run three tests below to verify performance impact of the patch series. > Each test has been run with 1, 2, and 4 filesystems mounted; test with 2 > filesystems was run with each filesystem on a different disk, test with 4 > filesystems had 2 filesystems on the first disk and 2 filesystems on the second > disk. > > Test 1: Run 200 times sync with filesystem mounted to verify overhead of > sync when there are no data to write. > Test 2: For each filesystem run a process creating 40 KB files, sleep > for 3 seconds, run sync. > Test 3: For each filesystem run a process creating 20 GB file, sleep for > 5 seconds, run sync. > > I have performed 10 runs of each test for xfs, ext3, ext4, and btrfs > filesystems. > > Results of test 1 > ----------------- > Numbers are time it took 200 syncs to complete. > Character in braces is + if the time increased with 2*STDDEV reliability, > - if it decreased with 2*STDDEV reliability, 0 otherwise. > BASE PATCHED > FS AVG STDDEV AVG STDDEV > xfs, 1 disks 4.189300 0.051525 2.141300 0.063389 (-) > xfs, 2 disks 4.820600 0.019096 4.611400 0.066322 (-) > xfs, 4 disks 6.518300 1.440362 6.435700 0.510641 (0) > ext4, 1 disks 4.085000 0.011375 1.689500 0.001360 (-) > ext4, 2 disks 4.088100 0.006488 1.705000 0.026359 (-) > ext4, 4 disks 4.107300 0.011934 1.702900 0.001814 (-) > ext3, 1 disks 4.080200 0.009527 1.703400 0.030559 (-) > ext3, 2 disks 4.138300 0.143909 1.694000 0.001414 (-) > ext3, 4 disks 4.107200 0.002482 1.702900 0.007778 (-) > btrfs, 1 disks 11.214600 0.086619 8.737200 0.081076 (-) > btrfs, 2 disks 32.910000 0.162089 30.673400 0.538820 (-) > btrfs, 4 disks 67.987700 1.655654 67.247100 1.971887 (0) > > So we see nice improvements almost all over the board. > > Results of test 2 > ----------------- > Numbers are time it took sync to complete. > > BASE PATCHED > FS AVG STDDEV AVG STDDEV > xfs, 1 disks 0.436000 0.012000 0.506000 0.014283 (+) > xfs, 2 disks 1.105000 0.055543 1.274000 0.244426 (0) > xfs, 4 disks 5.880000 2.997135 4.837000 3.875448 (0) > ext4, 1 disks 0.791000 0.055579 0.853000 0.042438 (0) > ext4, 2 disks 18.232000 13.505638 17.254000 2.000506 (0) > ext4, 4 disks 491.790000 218.565229 696.783000 234.933562 (0) > ext3, 1 disks 15.315000 2.065465 1.900000 0.184662 (-) > ext3, 2 disks 128.524000 18.090519 55.278000 1.530554 (-) > ext3, 4 disks 221.202000 30.090432 232.849000 68.745423 (0) > btrfs, 1 disks 0.452000 0.026000 0.494000 0.023749 (0) > btrfs, 2 disks 5.156000 4.530852 4.083000 1.560519 (0) > btrfs, 4 disks 31.154000 11.220828 36.987000 17.334126 (0) > > Except for ext3 which got a nice boost here and XFS which seems to be a tad bit > slower, there are no changes that would stand out of the noise. > > Results of test 3 > ----------------- > Numbers are time it took sync to complete. > > BASE PATCHED > FS AVG STDDEV AVG STDDEV > xfs, 1 disks 12.083000 0.058660 10.898000 0.285475 (-) > xfs, 2 disks 20.182000 0.549614 14.977000 0.351114 (-) > xfs, 4 disks 35.814000 5.318310 28.452000 3.332281 (0) > ext4, 1 disks 32.956000 5.753789 20.865000 3.892098 (0) > ext4, 2 disks 34.922000 3.051966 27.411000 2.752978 (0) > ext4, 4 disks 44.508000 6.829004 28.360000 2.561437 (0) > ext3, 1 disks 23.475000 1.288885 17.116000 0.319631 (-) > ext3, 2 disks 43.508000 4.998647 41.547000 2.597976 (0) > ext3, 4 disks 92.130000 11.344117 79.362000 9.891208 (0) > btrfs, 1 disks 12.478000 0.394304 12.847000 0.171117 (0) > btrfs, 2 disks 15.030000 0.777817 18.014000 2.011418 (0) > btrfs, 4 disks 32.395000 4.248859 38.411000 3.179939 (0) > > Here we see XFS and ext3 had some improvements, ext4 likely as well although > the results are relatively noisy. > > Honza > -- > 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 -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
