Il giorno mar, 24/12/2019 alle 09.27 +0800, Ming Lei ha scritto: > Hi Ted, > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 02:53:01PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 07:45:57PM +0100, Andrea Vai wrote: > > > basically, it's: > > > > > > mount UUID=$uuid /mnt/pendrive > > > SECONDS=0 > > > cp $testfile /mnt/pendrive > > > umount /mnt/pendrive > > > tempo=$SECONDS > > > > > > and it copies one file only. Anyway, you can find the whole > script > > > attached. > > > > OK, so whether we are doing the writeback at the end of cp, or > when > > you do the umount, it's probably not going to make any > difference. We > > can get rid of the stack trace in question by changing the script > to > > be basically: > > > > mount UUID=$uuid /mnt/pendrive > > SECONDS=0 > > rm -f /mnt/pendrive/$testfile > > cp $testfile /mnt/pendrive > > umount /mnt/pendrive > > tempo=$SECONDS > > > > I predict if you do that, you'll see that all of the time is spent > in > > the umount, when we are trying to write back the file. > > > > I really don't think then this is a file system problem at > all. It's > > just that USB I/O is slow, for whatever reason. We'll see a stack > > trace in the writeback code waiting for the I/O to be completed, > but > > that doesn't mean that the root cause is in the writeback code or > in > > the file system which is triggering the writeback. > > Wrt. the slow write on this usb storage, it is caused by two > writeback > path, one is the writeback wq, another is from ext4_release_file() > which > is triggered from exit_to_usermode_loop(). > > When the two write path is run concurrently, the sequential write > order > is broken, then write performance drops much on this particular usb > storage. > > The ext4_release_file() should be run from read() or write() syscall > if > Fedora 30's 'cp' is implemented correctly. IMO, it isn't expected > behavior > for ext4_release_file() to be run thousands of times when just > running 'cp' once, see comment of ext4_release_file(): > > /* > * Called when an inode is released. Note that this is > different > * from ext4_file_open: open gets called at every open, but > release > * gets called only when /all/ the files are closed. > */ > static int ext4_release_file(struct inode *inode, struct file > *filp) > > > > > I suspect the next step is use a blktrace, to see what kind of I/O > is > > being sent to the USB drive, and how long it takes for the I/O to > > complete. You might also try to capture the output of "iostat -x > 1" > > while the script is running, and see what the difference might be > > between a kernel version that has the problem and one that > doesn't, > > and see if that gives us a clue. > > That isn't necessary, given we have concluded that the bad write > performance is caused by broken write order. > > > > > > > And then send me > > > btw, please tell me if "me" means only you or I cc: all the > > > recipients, as usual > > > > Well, I don't think we know what the root cause is. Ming is > focusing > > on that stack trace, but I think it's a red herring..... And if > it's > > not a file system problem, then other people will be best suited > to > > debug the issue. > > So far, the reason points to the extra writeback path from > exit_to_usermode_loop(). > If it is not from close() syscall, the issue should be related with > file reference > count. If it is from close() syscall, the issue might be in 'cp''s > implementation. > > Andrea, please collect the following log or the strace log requested > by Ted, then > we can confirm if the extra writeback is from close() or > read/write() syscall: > > # pass PID of 'cp' to this script > #!/bin/sh > PID=$1 > /usr/share/bcc/tools/trace -P $PID -t -C \ > 't:block:block_rq_insert "%s %d %d", args->rwbs, args->sector, > args->nr_sector' \ > 't:syscalls:sys_exit_close ' \ > 't:syscalls:sys_exit_read ' \ > 't:syscalls:sys_exit_write ' Sorry if I am a bit confused, should I run it on ext4 or xfs, or doesn't matter? What if I get it on a "fast" run? Should I throw it away and try again until I get a slow one, or it doesn't matter? Thanks, Andrea
