On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 05:25:23PM +0800, Hsin-Yi Wang wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> We tested that the performance of readahead is regressed on multicore
> arm64 platforms running on the 5.10 kernel.
> - The platform we used: 8 cores (4x a53(small), 4x a73(big)) arm64 platform
> - The command we used: ureadahead $FILE ($FILE is a 1MB+ pack file,
> note that if the file size is small, it's not obvious to see the
> regression)
>
> After we revert the commit c1f6925e1091("mm: put readahead pages in
> cache earlier"), the readahead performance is back:
> - time ureadahead $FILE:
> - 5.10: 1m23.124s
> - with c1f6925e1091 reverted: 0m3.323s
> - other LTS kernel (eg. 5.4): 0m3.066s
>
> The slowest part is aops->readpage() in read_pages() called in
> read_pages(ractl, &page_pool, false); (the 3rd in
> page_cache_ra_unbounded())
What filesystem are you using?
> static void read_pages(struct readahead_control *rac, struct list_head *pages,
> bool skip_page)
> {
> ...
> if (aops->readahead) {
> ...
> } else if (aops->readpages) {
> ...
> } else {
> while ((page = readahead_page(rac))) {
> aops->readpage(rac->file, page); // most of the time is
> spent on this line
> put_page(page);
> }
> }
> ...
> }
>
> We also found following metrics that are relevant:
> - time ureadahead $FILE:
> - 5.10
> - taskset ureadahead to a small core: 0m7.411s
> - taskset ureadahead to a big core: 0m5.982s
> compared to the original 1m23s, pining the ureadahead task on a
> single core also solves the gap.
>
> Do you have any idea why moving pages to cache earlier then doing page
> read later will cause such a difference?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Hsin-Yi
