On 12/01/2015 04:56 PM, Brian Foster wrote:
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 03:58:28PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 12/01/2015 03:11 PM, Brian Foster wrote:
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:08:47AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/30/2015 06:14 PM, Brian Foster wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 04:29:13PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/30/2015 04:10 PM, Brian Foster wrote:
...
The agsize/agcount mkfs-time heuristics change depending on the type of
storage. A single AG can be up to 1TB and if the fs is not considered
"multidisk" (e.g., no stripe unit/width is defined), 4 AGs is the
default up to 4TB. If a stripe unit is set, the agsize/agcount is
adjusted depending on the size of the overall volume (see
xfsprogs-dev/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c:calc_default_ag_geometry() for details).
We'll experiment with this. Surely it depends on more than the amount of
storage? If you have a high op rate you'll be more likely to excite
contention, no?
Sure. The absolute optimal configuration for your workload probably
depends on more than storage size, but mkfs doesn't have that
information. In general, it tries to use the most reasonable
configuration based on the storage and expected workload. If you want to
tweak it beyond that, indeed, the best bet is to experiment with what
works.
We will do that.
Are those locks held around I/O, or just CPU operations, or a mix?
I believe it's a mix of modifications and I/O, though it looks like some
of the I/O cases don't necessarily wait on the lock. E.g., the AIL
pushing case will trylock and defer to the next list iteration if the
buffer is busy.
Ok. For us sleeping in io_submit() is death because we have no other thread
on that core to take its place.
The above is with regard to metadata I/O, whereas io_submit() is
obviously for user I/O.
Won't io_submit() also trigger metadata I/O? Or is that all deferred to
async tasks? I don't mind them blocking each other as long as they let my
io_submit alone.
Yeah, it can trigger metadata reads, force the log (the stale buffer
example) or push the AIL (wait on log space). Metadata changes made
directly via your I/O request are logged/committed via transactions,
which are generally processed asynchronously from that point on.
io_submit() can probably block in a variety of
places afaict... it might have to read in the inode extent map, allocate
blocks, take inode/ag locks, reserve log space for transactions, etc.
Any chance of changing all that to be asynchronous? Doesn't sound too hard,
if somebody else has to do it.
I'm not following... if the fs needs to read in the inode extent map to
prepare for an allocation, what else can the thread do but wait? Are you
suggesting the request kick off whatever the blocking action happens to
be asynchronously and return with an error such that the request can be
retried later?
Not quite, it should be invisible to the caller.
That is, the code called by io_submit() (file_operations::write_iter, it
seems to be called today) can kick off this operation and have it
continue from where it left off.
Seastar (the async user framework which we use to drive xfs) makes
writing code like this easy, using continuations; but of course from
ordinary threaded code it can be quite hard.
btw, there was an attempt to make ext[34] async using this method, but I
think it was ripped out. Yes, the mortal remains can still be seen with
'git grep EIOCBQUEUED'.
It sounds to me that first and foremost you want to make sure you don't
have however many parallel operations you typically have running
contending on the same inodes or AGs. Hint: creating files under
separate subdirectories is a quick and easy way to allocate inodes under
separate AGs (the agno is encoded into the upper bits of the inode
number).
Unfortunately our directory layout cannot be changed. And doesn't this
require having agcount == O(number of active files)? That is easily in the
thousands.
I think Glauber's O(nr_cpus) comment is probably the more likely
ballpark, but really it's something you'll probably just need to test to
see how far you need to go to avoid AG contention.
I'm primarily throwing the subdir thing out there for testing purposes.
It's just an easy way to create inodes in a bunch of separate AGs so you
can determine whether/how much it really helps with modified AG counts.
I don't know enough about your application design to really comment on
that...
We have O(cpus) shards that operate independently. Each shard writes
32MB commitlog files (that are pre-truncated to 32MB to allow concurrent
writes without blocking); the files are then flushed and closed, and
later removed. In parallel there are sequential writes and reads of
large files using 128kB buffers), as well as random reads. Files are
immutable (append-only), and if a file is being written, it is not
concurrently read. In general files are not shared across shards. All
I/O is async and O_DIRECT. open(), truncate(), fdatasync(), and friends
are called from a helper thread.
As far as I can tell it should a very friendly load for XFS and SSDs.
Reducing the frequency of block allocation/frees might also be
another help (e.g., preallocate and reuse files,
Isn't that discouraged for SSDs?
Perhaps, if you're referring to the fact that the blocks are never freed
and thus never discarded..? Are you running fstrim?
mount -o discard. And yes, overwrites are supposedly more expensive
than trim old data + allocate new data, but maybe if you compare it with
the work XFS has to do, perhaps the tradeoff is bad.
If so, it would certainly impact that by holding blocks as allocated to
inodes as opposed to putting them in free space trees where they can be
discarded. If not, I don't see how it would make a difference, but
perhaps I misunderstand the point. That said, there's probably others on
the list who can more definitively discuss SSD characteristics than I...
We can do that for a subset of our files.
We do use XFS_IOC_FSSETXATTR though.
'mount -o ikeep,'
Interesting. Our files are large so we could try this.
Just to be clear... this behavior change is more directly associated
with file count than file size (though indirectly larger files might
mean you have less of them, if that's your point).
Yes, that's what I meant, and especially that if a lot of files are
removed we'd be losing the inode space allocated to them.
To generalize a bit, I'd be more weary of using this option if your
filesystem can be used in an unstructured manner in any way. For
example, if the file count can balloon up and back down temporarily,
that's going to allocate a bunch of metadata space for inodes that won't
ever be reclaimed or reused for anything other than inodes.
Exactly. File count can balloon, but files will be large, so even the
worst case waste is very limited.
etc.). Beyond that, you probably want to make sure the log is large
enough to support all concurrent operations. See the xfs_log_grant_*
tracepoints for a window into if/how long transaction reservations might
be waiting on the log.
I see that on an 400G fs, the log is 180MB. Seems plenty large for write
operations that are mostly large sequential, though I've no real feel for
the numbers. Will keep an eye on this.
FWIW, XFS on recent kernels has grown some sysfs entries that might help
give an idea of log reservation state at runtime. See the entries under
/sys/fs/xfs/<dev>/log for details.
Great. We will study those with great interest.
Brian
Thanks for all the info.
Brian
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
