On 2012-07-16 21:21 Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxxxxxx> Wrote:
>2012/7/15 majianpeng <majianpeng@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> On 2012-07-16 11:29 Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxxxxxx> Wrote:
>>>2012/7/15 majianpeng <majianpeng@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> Create a raid5 using four disk and the chunksize is 512K.
>>>> Test command is: dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/md0 bs=1536K count=90000 oflag=direct
>>>>
>>>> In RHEL6(kernel 2.6.32):speed about 240MB/s
>>>> In 3.5.0-rc5:speed about 77MB/S
>>>> Add two patch in 3.5.0-rc5, speed about 200MB/S.
>>>>
>>>> So the performance of odirect-wrirte for block-deivce was obvious reduced.
>>>> PATCH 1/2: Add blk_plug function for odirect-write block-device
>>>> PATCH 2/2: Remove REQ_SYNC for odirect-write in raid456.
>>>>
>>>> PATCH 2/2 maybe not correct because it alse for odirect-write for regular file.
>>>> Jianpeng Ma (2):
>>>> fs/block-dev.c:fix performance regression in O_DIRECT writes to
>>>> md block devices.
>>>
>>>In raid5, all requests are submitted by raid5d thread, which already has
>>>plug. Why doesn't it work?
>> No. the purpose of two patch is to reduce the read operation when write which was not full-write.
>> I tested in RHEL6.The read operation is zero.But in 3.5.0-rc5, the read operaiton may equal to write-operation.
>> And i used the bs was 1536k(3*512k(chunk-size)).
>
>yes, I know. But I want to understand why we need the plug in your
>test. The IO is dispatched from raid5d, it already has plug.
Plug in raid5 only effect the blk_queue_bio().
Plug in direct_aio_write only effect the mddev_check_plugged.
It will effect the code :
raid5d:
>if (atomic_read(&mddev->plug_cnt) == 0)
> raid5_activate_delayed(conf);
>
So two plugs are two different function.
>Fengguang used to post a patch to move the plug from generic_file_aio_write
>to do_blockdev_direct_IO, which sounds better.
>
I did find this patch in kernel.
syscall_write patch is :
syscall_write--->vfs_write->f_op.write or do_sync_write-->f_op.aio_write
For regular file: aio_wirte is generic_file_aio_write().
generic_file_aio_write() used blk_plug.so for odirect wirte for regular file,the plug used.But it not in do_blockdev_direct_IO.
For block file: aio_write is blkdev_aio_write().
blkdev_aio_write call __generic_file_aio_write--->generic_file_direct_write-->a_ops.direct_io that is blkdev_direct_IO.
So odirect-write for block,there is not plug.
Can you send the patch or the commit? I want to find the performance which better.
>>>> raid5: For write performance, remove REQ_SYNC when write was odirect.
>>>
>>>REQ_SYNC only impacts CFQ, this sounds not reasonable. So the disks
>>>are using CFQ ioscheduler. Can you check if you can see the same issue
>>>with deadline?
>> I tested and the result is the same like cfq.
>> But in RHEL6, the ioscheduler is also cfq.
>>>
>>>Let me guess, without REQ_SYNC, read will get higher priority against write
>>>in CFQ, so in this case, write gets delayed, and maybe get better write
>>>request merge. And now with REQ_SYNC, read and write has the same
>>>priority, there is less request merge.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Shaohua
>> For harddisk,the read for not full-write will remarkly reduce the performance.
>> So the first it to make write full-write as posible.
>
>yes, this is the symptom, but I'd like to understand why REQ_SYNC makes
>the difference.
>
Because the REQ_SYNC, the stripe set STRIPE_PREREAD_ACTIVE.So the stripe will be not delay and read some data.
Because the read operation, the performance will remarkly reduce for harddisk.
I did not have ssd device,so i don't know the effect to ssd devcie.
>Thanks,
>Shaohua?韬{.n?????%??檩??w?{.n???{饼?z鳐??骅w* jg????????G??⒏ ⒎?:+v???????? ????＂??????
