On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:10:07AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > We talked a little about this issue in this thread: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=137573185419275&w=2 > > but I figured I'd follow up with a full comparison. ext4 is about 20% > slower in handling write page faults than ext3. xfs is about 30% slower > than ext3. I'm running on an 8-socket / 80-core / 160-thread system. > Test case is this: > > https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale/blob/master/tests/page_fault3.c So, it writes a 128MB file sequentially via mmap page faults. This isn't a page fault benchmark, as such... > > It's a little easier to look at the trends as you grow the number of > processes: > > http://www.sr71.net/~dave/intel/page-fault-exts/cmp.html?1=ext3&2=ext4&3=xfs&hide=linear,threads,threads_idle,processes_idle&rollPeriod=16 > > I recorded and diff'd some perf data (I've still got the raw data if > anyone wants it), and the main culprit of the ext4/xfs delta looks to be > spinlock contention (or at least bouncing) in xfs_log_commit_cil(). > This looks to be a known problem: > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-07/msg00110.html Yup, apparently they've been pulled into the xfsdev tree, but i haven't seen it updated since they were pulled in so the linux-next builds aren't picking up the fixes yet. > Here's a brief snippet of the ext4->xfs 'perf diff'. Note that things > like page_fault() go down in the profile because we are doing _fewer_ of > them, not because it got faster: > > > # Baseline Delta Shared Object Symbol > > # ........ ....... ..................... .............................................. > > # > > 22.04% -4.07% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] page_fault > > 2.93% +12.49% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock > > 8.21% -0.58% page_fault3_processes [.] testcase > > 4.87% -0.34% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __set_page_dirty_buffers > > 4.07% -0.58% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mem_cgroup_update_page_stat > > 4.10% -0.61% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __block_write_begin > > 3.69% -0.57% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] find_get_page > > It's a bit of a bummer that things are so much less scalable on the > newer filesystems. Sorry, what? What filesystems are you comparing here? XFS is anything but new... > I expected xfs to do a _lot_ better than it did. perf diff doesn't tell me anything about how you should expect the workload to scale. This workload appears to be a concurrent write workload using mmap(), so performance is going to be determined by filesystem configuration, storage capability and the CPU overhead of the page_mkwrite() path through the filesystem. It's not a page fault benchmark at all - it's simply a filesystem write bandwidth benchmark. So, perhaps you could describe the storage you are using, as that would shed more light on your results. A good summary of what information is useful to us is here: http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_What_information_should_I_include_when_reporting_a_problem.3F And FWIW, it's no secret that XFS has more per-operation overhead than ext4 through the write path when it comes to allocation, so it's no surprise that on a workload that is highly dependent on allocation overhead that ext4 is a bit faster.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
