On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:00:04PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:57:24AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 05:50:02AM -0400, Namjae Jeon wrote: > > > From: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This patch is based on suggestion by Wu Fengguang: > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/19/19 > > > > > > kernel has mechanism to do writeback as per dirty_ratio and dirty_background > > > ratio. It also maintains per task dirty rate limit to keep balance of > > > dirty pages at any given instance by doing bdi bandwidth estimation. > > > > > > Kernel also has max_ratio/min_ratio tunables to specify percentage of writecache > > > to control per bdi dirty limits and task throtelling. > > > > > > However, there might be a usecase where user wants a writeback tuning > > > parameter to flush dirty data at desired/tuned time interval. > > > > > > dirty_background_time provides an interface where user can tune background > > > writeback start time using /sys/block/sda/bdi/dirty_background_time > > > > > > dirty_background_time is used alongwith average bdi write bandwidth estimation > > > to start background writeback. > > > > Here lies my major concern about dirty_background_time: the write > > bandwidth estimation is an _estimation_ and will sure become wildly > > wrong in some cases. So the dirty_background_time implementation based > > on it will not always work to the user expectations. > > > > One important case is, some users (eg. Dave Chinner) explicitly take > > advantage of the existing behavior to quickly create & delete a big > > 1GB temp file without worrying about triggering unnecessary IOs. > > It's a fairly common use case - short term temp files are used by > lots of applications and avoiding writing them - especially on NFS - > is a big performance win. Forcing immediate writeback will > definitely cause unprdictable changes in performance for many > people... > > > > Results are:- > > > ========================================================== > > > Case:1 - Normal setup without any changes > > > ./performancetest_arm ./100MB write > > > > > > RecSize WriteSpeed RanWriteSpeed > > > > > > 10485760 7.93MB/sec 8.11MB/sec > > > 1048576 8.21MB/sec 7.80MB/sec > > > 524288 8.71MB/sec 8.39MB/sec > > > 262144 8.91MB/sec 7.83MB/sec > > > 131072 8.91MB/sec 8.95MB/sec > > > 65536 8.95MB/sec 8.90MB/sec > > > 32768 8.76MB/sec 8.93MB/sec > > > 16384 8.78MB/sec 8.67MB/sec > > > 8192 8.90MB/sec 8.52MB/sec > > > 4096 8.89MB/sec 8.28MB/sec > > > > > > Average speed is near 8MB/seconds. > > > > > > Case:2 - Modified the dirty_background_time > > > ./performancetest_arm ./100MB write > > > > > > RecSize WriteSpeed RanWriteSpeed > > > > > > 10485760 10.56MB/sec 10.37MB/sec > > > 1048576 10.43MB/sec 10.33MB/sec > > > 524288 10.32MB/sec 10.02MB/sec > > > 262144 10.52MB/sec 10.19MB/sec > > > 131072 10.34MB/sec 10.07MB/sec > > > 65536 10.31MB/sec 10.06MB/sec > > > 32768 10.27MB/sec 10.24MB/sec > > > 16384 10.54MB/sec 10.03MB/sec > > > 8192 10.41MB/sec 10.38MB/sec > > > 4096 10.34MB/sec 10.12MB/sec > > > > > > we can see, average write speed is increased to ~10-11MB/sec. > > > ============================================================ > > > > The numbers are impressive! > > All it shows is that avoiding the writeback delay writes a file a > bit faster. i.e. 5s delay + 10s @ 10MB/s vs no delay and 10s > @10MB/s. That's pretty obvious, really, and people have been trying > to make this "optimisation" for NFS clients for years in the > misguided belief that short-cutting writeback caching is beneficial > to application performance. > > What these numbers don't show that is whether over-the-wire > writeback speed has improved at all. Or what happens when you have a > network that is faster than the server disk, or even faster than the > client can write into memory? What about when there are multiple > threads, or the network is congested, or the server overloaded? In > those cases the performance differential will disappear and > there's a good chance that the existing code will be significantly > faster because it places less imediate load on the server and > network.D... > > If you need immediate dispatch of your data for single threaded > performance then sync_file_range() is your friend. > > > FYI, I tried another NFS specific approach > > to avoid big NFS COMMITs, which achieved similar performance gains: > > > > nfs: writeback pages wait queue > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/20/235 > > Which is basically controlling the server IO latency when commits > occur - smaller ranges mean the commit (fsync) is faster, and more > frequent commits mean the data goes to disk sooner. This is > something that will have a positive impact on writeback speeds > because it modifies the NFs client writeback behaviour to be more > server friendly and not stall over the wire. i.e. improving NFS > writeback performance is all about keeping the wire full and the > server happy, not about reducing the writeback delay before we start > writing over the wire. Wait, aren't we confusing client and server side here? If I read Namjae Jeon's post correctly, I understood that it was the *server* side he was modifying to start writeout sooner, to improve response time to eventual expected commits from the client. The responses above all seem to be about the client. Maybe it's all the same at some level, but: naively, starting writeout early would seem a better bet on the server side. By the time we get writes, the client has already decided they're worth sending to disk. And changes to make clients and applications friendlier to the server are great, but we don't always have that option--there are more clients out there than servers and the latter may be easier to upgrade than the former. --b. -- 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
