On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 01:14:17AM -0700, Jason Newton wrote: > Hi, > > I think the following bug is still around: > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2011-11/msg00179.html > > I get the same stack trace. Not surprising, I doubt anyone has looked at it much. Indeed, xfs/090 assert fails immediately in the rt allocator for me.... > There's another report out there somewhere > with another similar stack trace. I know the realtime code is not > maintained so much but it seems to be a waste to let it fall out of > maintenance when it's the only thing on linux that seems to fill the > realtime io niche. The XFS "realtime" device has nothing to do with "realtime IO". If anything, it's probably much worse at "realtime IO" than the normal data device, especially at scale, because it is bitmap rather than btree based. And it is single threaded. That's why it really isn't maintained - the data device is as good or better in RT workloads as the "realtime" device.... > So this email is mainly about the null pointer deref on the spinlock in > _xfs_buf_find on realtime files, but I figure I might also ask a few more > questions. > > What kind of differences should one expect between GRIO and realtime files? Linux doesn't support GRIO. It's an Irix only thing, and that required special hardware support for bandwidth reservation, special frame schedulers in the IO path, etc. The XFS realtime device was just one part of the whole GRIO framework. Anyway, if you don't have 15 year old SGI hardware you can't use GRIO. If you are talking about GRIOv2, then, well, you aren't running CXFS... > What kind of on latencies of writes should one expect for realtime files vs > normal? How long is a piece of string? > raw video to disk (3 high res 10bit video streams, 5.7MB per frame, at 20hz > so effectively 60fps total). I use 2 512GB OCZ vertex 4 SSDs which > support ~450MB/s each. I've soft-raided them together (raid 0) with a 4k > chunksize There's your first problem. You are storing 5.7MB files, so why would you use a 4k chunk size? You'd do better with something on the order of 1MB chunk size (2MB stripe width) so that you are forming as large IOs as possible with the minimum of software overhead (i.e no merging of 4k IOs into larger IOs in the IO scheduler). Note that you are also writing hundreds of GB to the SSDs, which will be triggering internal garbage collection, and that will have significant impact on Io completion latency. It's not uncommon to see 500ms IO latencies occur on consumer level SSDs when garbage collect kicks in. If you are going to use SATA SSDs, then you're going to have to design your application to be able to handle such write latencies... > and I get about 900MB/s avg in a benchmark program I wrote to > simulate my videostream logging needs. I only save one file per > videostream (only 1 videostream modeled in simulation), which I append to > in a loop with a single write call, which records the frame, over and over > while keeping track of timing. The typical format for high bandwidth video stream is file per frame. That's exactly what the filestreams allocator is designed for - ingest of multiple streams and keeping them in separate locations (AGs) on disk. This means allocation remains concurrent and doesn't serialise, causing excess, unpredicatble latencies. Indeed, if you use file per frame, and a RAID0 chunk size of 3MB (6MB stripe width), then XFs will align the data in each file to the same stripe unit boundary for all files. There will be 300kb of free space between them, but having everything nicely aligned to the underlying geometry tends to help maintain allocation determinism until the filesystem is 5.7/6 * 100% = 95% full..... > The frame is in memory and nonzero with > some interesting pattern to defeat compression if its in the pipeline > anywhere. I get 180-300MB/s with O_DIRECT, so better performance without > O_DIRECT (maybe because it's soft-raid?). It sounds like you are using in line write(2) calls, which means the IO is synchronous (i.e. occurs within the write syscall), which means throughput is bound by IO completion latency. AIO+DIO solves this problem as it implies application level frame buffering - this is a common way of ensuring that IO latencies don't cause dropped frames Using buffered IO means the write(2) operates at memory speed, but you then have no control over allocation and writeback, and memory allocation and reclaim becomes a major source of latency that direct IO does not have. Doing buffered IO to the realtime device is, well, even less well tested than the realtime device, as historically the RT device only supported direct IO. It's supposed to work, but it's never really been well tested, and I don't know anyone who uses it in production.... > The problem is that I > occationally get hickups in latency... there's nothing else using the disk > (embedded system, no other pid's running + root is RO). I use the deadline > io scheduler on both my SSDs. Yep, that'll be because you are using buffered IO. It'll be faster than a naive Direct IO implementation, but you'll have latency issues that cannot be avoided or predicted. > xfs_info of my video raid: > meta-data=/dev/md2 isize=256 agcount=32, agsize=7380047 Lots of little AGs - that will stress the freespace management of the filesystem pretty quickly..... > blks > = sectsz=512 attr=2 > data = bsize=4096 blocks=236161504, imaxpct=25 > = sunit=1 swidth=2 blks > naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 > log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=115313, version=2 > = sectsz=512 sunit=1 blks, lazy-count=1 > realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 And no realtime device. It doesn't look like you're testing what you think you are testing.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
