Hi Trond,
I wonder if I might get your help/advice on an issue with NFS.
It seems that NFS_DATA_SYNC is hardly used at all currently. It is used for
O_DIRECT writes and for writes 'for_reclaim', and for handling some error
conditions, but that is about it.
This appears to be a regression.
Back in 2005, commit ab0a3dbedc5 in 2.6.13 says:
[PATCH] NFS: Write optimization for short files and small O_SYNC writes.
Use stable writes if we can see that we are only going to put a single
write on the wire.
which seems like a sensible optimisation, and we have a customer which
values it. Very roughly, they have an NFS server which optimises 'unstable'
writes for throughput and 'stable' writes for latency - these seems like a
reasonable approach.
With a 2.6.16 kernel an application which generates many small sync writes
gets adequate performance. In 2.6.32 they see unstable writes followed by
commits, which cannot be (or at least aren't) optimised as well.
It seems this was changed by commit c63c7b0513953
NFS: Fix a race when doing NFS write coalescing
in 2.6.22.
Is it possible/easy/desirable to get this behaviour back. i.e. to use
NFS_DATA_SYNC at least on sub-page writes triggered by a write to an
O_SYNC file.
My (possibly naive) attempt is as follows. It appears to work as I expect
(though it still uses SYNC for 1-page writes) but I'm not confident that it
is "right".
Thanks,
NeilBrown
diff --git a/fs/nfs/write.c b/fs/nfs/write.c
index 10d648e..392bfa8 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/write.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/write.c
@@ -178,6 +178,9 @@ static int wb_priority(struct writeback_control *wbc)
return FLUSH_HIGHPRI | FLUSH_STABLE;
if (wbc->for_kupdate || wbc->for_background)
return FLUSH_LOWPRI;
+ if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL &&
+ (wbc->range_end - wbc->range_start) < PAGE_SIZE)
+ return FLUSH_STABLE;
return 0;
}
--
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
