On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 05:01:00AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > I'm pleased to announce I have a git tree up of my vfs scalability work. > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/npiggin/linux-npiggin.git > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/npiggin/linux-npiggin.git > > Branch vfs-scale-working Bug's I've noticed so far: - Using XFS, the existing vfs inode count statistic does not decrease as inodes are free. - the existing vfs dentry count remains at zero - the existing vfs free inode count remains at zero $ pminfo -f vfs.inodes vfs.dentry vfs.inodes.count value 7472612 vfs.inodes.free value 0 vfs.dentry.count value 0 vfs.dentry.free value 0 Performance Summary: With lockdep and CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG enabled, a 16 thread parallel sequential create/unlink workload on an 8p/4GB RAM VM with a virtio block device sitting on a short-stroked 12x2TB SAS array w/ 512MB BBWC in RAID0 via dm and using the noop elevator in the guest VM: $ sudo mkfs.xfs -f -l size=128m -d agcount=16 /dev/vdb meta-data=/dev/vdb isize=256 agcount=16, agsize=1638400 blks = sectsz=512 attr=2 data = bsize=4096 blocks=26214400, imaxpct=25 = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=32768, version=2 = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1 realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 $ sudo mount -o delaylog,logbsize=262144,nobarrier /dev/vdb /mnt/scratch $ sudo chmod 777 /mnt/scratch $ cd ~/src/fs_mark-3.3/ $ ./fs_mark -S0 -n 500000 -s 0 -d /mnt/scratch/0 -d /mnt/scratch/1 -d /mnt/scratch/3 -d /mnt/scratch/2 -d /mnt/scratch/4 -d /mnt/scratch/5 -d /mnt/scratch/6 -d /mnt/scratch/7 -d /mnt/scratch/8 -d /mnt/scratch/9 -d /mnt/scratch/10 -d /mnt/scratch/11 -d /mnt/scratch/12 -d /mnt/scratch/13 -d /mnt/scratch/14 -d /mnt/scratch/15 files/s 2.6.34-rc4 12550 2.6.35-rc5+scale 12285 So the same within the error margins of the benchmark. Screenshot of monitoring graphs - you can see the effect of the broken stats: http://userweb.kernel.org/~dgc/shrinker-2.6.36/fs_mark-2.6.35-rc4-16x500-xfs.png http://userweb.kernel.org/~dgc/shrinker-2.6.36/fs_mark-2.6.35-rc5-npiggin-scale-lockdep-16x500-xfs.png With a production build (i.e. no lockdep, no xfs debug), I'll run the same fs_mark parallel create/unlink workload to show scalability as I ran here: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2010-05/msg00329.html The numbers can't be directly compared, but the test and the setup is the same. The XFS numbers below are with delayed logging enabled. ext4 is using default mkfs and mount parameters except for barrier=0. All numbers are averages of three runs. fs_mark rate (thousands of files/second) 2.6.35-rc5 2.6.35-rc5-scale threads xfs ext4 xfs ext4 1 20 39 20 39 2 35 55 35 57 4 60 41 57 42 8 79 9 75 9 ext4 is getting IO bound at more than 2 threads, so apart from pointing out that XFS is 8-9x faster than ext4 at 8 thread, I'm going to ignore ext4 for the purposes of testing scalability here. For XFS w/ delayed logging, 2.6.35-rc5 is only getting to about 600% CPU and with Nick's patches it's about 650% (10% higher) for slightly lower throughput. So at this class of machine for this workload, the changes result in a slight reduction in scalability. I looked at dbench on XFS as well, but didn't see any significant change in the numbers at up to 200 load threads, so not much to talk about there. Sometime over the weekend I'll build a 16p VM and see what I get from that... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
