> You may have a misunderstanding about what exactly "async" does. The > "sync" / "async" mount options control only whether the application > waits for the data to be flushed to permanent storage. They have no > effect on any file system I know of _how_ specifically the data is > moved from the page cache to permanent storage. The problem is that the client change seems to cause the application to stop until this stable write completes... What is interesting is that it's not always a write operation that the linker gets stuck on. Our best hypothesis -- from correlating times in strace and tcpdump traces -- is that the FILE_SYNC'ed write NFS RPCs are in fact triggered by *read()* system calls on the output file (that is opened for read/write). We THINK the read call triggers a FILE_SYNC write if the page is dirty...and that is why the read calls are taking so long. Seeing writes happening when the app is waiting for a read is odd to say the least... (In my test, there is nothing else running on the Virtual machines, so the only thing that could be triggering the filesystem activity is the build test...) ================================================================= Brian Cowan Advisory Software Engineer ClearCase Customer Advocacy Group (CAG) Rational Software IBM Software Group 81 Hartwell Ave Lexington, MA Phone: 1.781.372.3580 Web: http://www.ibm.com/software/rational/support/ Please be sure to update your PMR using ESR at http://www-306.ibm.com/software/support/probsub.html or cc all correspondence to sw_support@xxxxxxxxxx to be sure your PMR is updated in case I am not available. From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> To: Brian R Cowan/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-nfs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Peter Staubach <staubach@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: 05/29/2009 01:02 PM Subject: Re: Read/Write NFS I/O performance degraded by FLUSH_STABLE page flushing Sent by: linux-nfs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On May 29, 2009, at 11:55 AM, Brian R Cowan wrote: > Been working this issue with Red hat, and didn't need to go to the > list... > Well, now I do... You mention that "The main type of workload we're > targetting with this patch is the app that opens a file, writes < 4k > and > then closes the file." Well, it appears that this issue also impacts > flushing pages from filesystem caches. > > The reason this came up in my environment is that our product's build > auditing gives the the filesystem cache an interesting workout. When > ClearCase audits a build, the build places data in a few places, > including: > 1) a build audit file that usually resides in /tmp. This build audit > is > essentially a log of EVERY file open/read/write/delete/rename/etc. > that > the programs called in the build script make in the clearcase "view" > you're building in. As a result, this file can get pretty large. > 2) The build outputs themselves, which in this case are being > written to a > remote storage location on a Linux or Solaris server, and > 3) a file called .cmake.state, which is a local cache that is > written to > after the build script completes containing what is essentially a > "Bill of > materials" for the files created during builds in this "view." > > We believe that the build audit file access is causing build output > to get > flushed out of the filesystem cache. These flushes happen *in 4k > chunks.* > This trips over this change since the cache pages appear to get > flushed on > an individual basis. So, are you saying that the application is flushing after every 4KB write(2), or that the application has written a bunch of pages, and VM/ VFS on the client is doing the synchronous page flushes? If it's the application doing this, then you really do not want to mitigate this by defeating the STABLE writes -- the application must have some requirement that the data is permanent. Unless I have misunderstood something, the previous faster behavior was due to cheating, and put your data at risk. I can't see how replacing an UNSTABLE + COMMIT with a single FILE_SYNC write would cause such a significant performance impact. > One note is that if the build outputs were going to a clearcase view > stored on an enterprise-level NAS device, there isn't as much of an > issue > because many of these return from the stable write request as soon > as the > data goes into the battery-backed memory disk cache on the NAS. > However, > it really impacts writes to general-purpose OS's that follow Sun's > lead in > how they handle "stable" writes. The truly annoying part about this > rather > subtle change is that the NFS client is specifically ignoring the > client > mount options since we cannot force the "async" mount option to turn > off > this behavior. You may have a misunderstanding about what exactly "async" does. The "sync" / "async" mount options control only whether the application waits for the data to be flushed to permanent storage. They have no effect on any file system I know of _how_ specifically the data is moved from the page cache to permanent storage. > ================================================================= > Brian Cowan > Advisory Software Engineer > ClearCase Customer Advocacy Group (CAG) > Rational Software > IBM Software Group > 81 Hartwell Ave > Lexington, MA > > Phone: 1.781.372.3580 > Web: http://www.ibm.com/software/rational/support/ > > > Please be sure to update your PMR using ESR at > http://www-306.ibm.com/software/support/probsub.html or cc all > correspondence to sw_support@xxxxxxxxxx to be sure your PMR is > updated in > case I am not available. > > > > From: > Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: > Peter Staubach <staubach@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: > Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>, Brian R Cowan/Cupertino/ > IBM@IBMUS, > linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Date: > 04/30/2009 05:23 PM > Subject: > Re: Read/Write NFS I/O performance degraded by FLUSH_STABLE page > flushing > Sent by: > linux-nfs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 16:41 -0400, Peter Staubach wrote: >> Chuck Lever wrote: >>> >>> On Apr 30, 2009, at 4:12 PM, Brian R Cowan wrote: >>>> >>>> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=ab0a3dbedc51037f3d2e22ef67717a987b3d15e2 > >>>> >> Actually, the "stable" part can be a killer. It depends upon >> why and when nfs_flush_inode() is invoked. >> >> I did quite a bit of work on this aspect of RHEL-5 and discovered >> that this particular code was leading to some serious slowdowns. >> The server would end up doing a very slow FILE_SYNC write when >> all that was really required was an UNSTABLE write at the time. >> >> Did anyone actually measure this optimization and if so, what >> were the numbers? > > As usual, the optimisation is workload dependent. The main type of > workload we're targetting with this patch is the app that opens a > file, > writes < 4k and then closes the file. For that case, it's a no-brainer > that you don't need to split a single stable write into an unstable > + a > commit. > > So if the application isn't doing the above type of short write > followed > by close, then exactly what is causing a flush to disk in the first > place? Ordinarily, the client will try to cache writes until the cows > come home (or until the VM tells it to reclaim memory - whichever > comes > first)... > > Cheers > Trond > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" > in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
