On 02/11/2015 02:22 PM, Anna Schumaker wrote: > On 02/11/2015 11:22 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:13:38AM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Anna Schumaker >>> <Anna.Schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> I'm not seeing a huge performance increase with READ_PLUS compared to READ (in fact, it's often a bit slower compared to READ, even when using splice). My guess is that the problem is mostly on the client's end since we have to do a memory shift on each segment to get everything lined up properly. I'm playing around with code that cuts down the number of memory shifts, but I still have a few bugs to work out before I'll know if it actually helps. >>>> >>> >>> I'm wondering if the right way to do READ_PLUS would have been to >>> instead have a separate function READ_SPARSE, that will return a list >>> of all sparse areas in the supplied range. We could even make that a >>> READ_SAME, that can do the same for patterned data. >> >> I worry about ending up with incoherent results, but perhaps it's no >> different from the current behavior since we're already piecing together >> our idea of the file content from multiple reads sent in parallel. >> >>> The thing is that READ works just fine for what we want it to do. The >>> real win here would be if given a very large file, we could request a >>> list of all the sparse areas in, say, a 100GB range, and then use that >>> data to build up a bitmap of unallocated blocks for which we can skip >>> the READ requests. >> >> Can we start by having the server return a single data extent covering >> the whole read request, with the single exception of the case where the >> read falls entirely within a hole? > > I'm trying this and it's still giving me pretty bad performance. I picked out 6 xfstests that read sparse files, and v4.2 takes almost a minute longer to run compared to v4.1. (1:30 vs 2:22). > > I'm going to look into how I zero pages on the client - maybe that can be combined with the right-shift function so pages only need to be mapped into memory once. Today I learned all about how to use operf to identify where the bottleneck is :). It looks like the problem is in the hole zeroing code on the client side. Is there a better way than memset() to mark a page as all zeros? Anna > > Anna > >> >> I think that should help in the case of large holes without interfering >> with the client's zero-copy logic in the case there are no large holes. >> >> --b. >> > > -- > 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
