On 04/01/2016 12:16 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:39:25PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 03/31/2016 09:29 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
I can't seem to reproduce this at all. On an nvme device, I get a
fairly steady 60K/sec file creation rate, and we're nowhere near
being IO bound. So the throttling has no effect at all.
That's too slow to show the stalls - your likely concurrency bound
in allocation by the default AG count (4) from mkfs. Use mkfs.xfs -d
agcount=32 so that every thread works in it's own AG.
That's the key, with that I get 300-400K ops/sec instead. I'll run some
testing with this tomorrow and see what I can find, it did one full run
now and I didn't see any issues, but I need to run it at various
settings and see if I can find the issue.
No stalls seen, I get the same performance with it disabled and with
it enabled, at both default settings, and lower ones
(wb_percent=20). Looking at iostat, we don't drive a lot of depth,
so it makes sense, even with the throttling we're doing essentially
the same amount of IO.
Try appending numa=fake=4 to your guest's kernel command line.
(that's what I'm using)
Sure, I can give that a go.
What does 'nr_requests' say for your virtio_blk device? Looks like
virtio_blk has a queue_depth setting, but it's not set by default,
and then it uses the free entries in the ring. But I don't know what
that is...
$ cat /sys/block/vdc/queue/nr_requests
128
OK, so that would put you in the 16/32/64 category for idle/normal/high
priority writeback. Which fits with the iostat below, which is in the
~16 range.
So the META thing should help, it'll bump it up a bit. But we're also
seeing smaller requests, and I think that could be because after we do
throttle, we could potentially have a merge candidate. The code doesn't
check post-sleeping, it'll allow any merges before though. Though that
part is a little harder to read from the iostat numbers, but there does
seem to be a correlation between your higher depths and bigger request
sizes.
I'll try the "don't throttle REQ_META" patch, but this seems like a
fragile way to solve this problem - it shuts up the messenger, but
doesn't solve the problem for any other subsystem that might have a
similer issue. e.g. next we're going to have to make sure direct IO
(which is also REQ_WRITE dispatch) does not get throttled, and so
on....
I don't think there's anything wrong with the REQ_META patch. Sure, we
could have better classifications (like discussed below), but that's
mainly tweaking. As long as we get the same answers, it's fine. There's
no throttling of O_DIRECT writes in the current code, it specifically
doesn't include those. It's only for the unbounded writes, which
writeback tends to be.
It seems to me that the right thing to do here is add a separate
classification flag for IO that can be throttled. e.g. as
REQ_WRITEBACK and only background writeback work sets this flag.
That would ensure that when the IO is being dispatched from other
sources (e.g. fsync, sync_file_range(), direct IO, filesystem
metadata, etc) it is clear that it is not a target for throttling.
This would also allow us to easily switch off throttling if
writeback is occurring for memory reclaim reasons, and so on.
Throttling policy decisions belong above the block layer, even
though the throttle mechanism itself is in the block layer.
We're already doing all of that, it's just doesn't include a specific
REQ_WRITEBACK flag. And yeah, that would clean up the checking for
request type, but functionally it should be the same as it is now. It'll
be a bit more robust and easier to read if we just have a REQ_WRITEBACK,
right now it's WRITE_SYNC vs WRITE for important vs not-important, with
a check for write vs O_DIRECT write as well.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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
