[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] a few storage topics

Jan Kara <jack suse cz> writes:

> On Tue 24-01-12 15:13:40, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Jan Kara <jack suse cz> writes:
>> > On Tue 24-01-12 14:14:14, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> >> Chris Mason <chris mason oracle com> writes:
>> >> 
>> >> >> All three filesystems use the generic mpages code for reads, so they
>> >> >> all get the same (bad) I/O patterns.  Looks like we need to fix this up
>> >> >> ASAP.
>> >> >
>> >> > Can you easily run btrfs through the same rig?  We don't use mpages and
>> >> > I'm curious.
>> >> 
>> >> The readahead code was to blame, here.  I wonder if we can change the
>> >> logic there to not break larger I/Os down into smaller sized ones.
>> >> Fengguang, doing a dd if=file of=/dev/null bs=1M results in 128K I/Os,
>> >> when 128KB is the read_ahead_kb value.  Is there any heuristic you could
>> >> apply to not break larger I/Os up like this?  Does that make sense?
>> >   Well, not breaking up I/Os would be fairly simple as ondemand_readahead()
>> > already knows how much do we want to read. We just trim the submitted I/O to
>> > read_ahead_kb artificially. And that is done so that you don't trash page
>> > cache (possibly evicting pages you have not yet copied to userspace) when
>> > there are several processes doing large reads.
>> Do you really think applications issue large reads and then don't use
>> the data?  I mean, I've seen some bad programming, so I can believe that
>> would be the case.  Still, I'd like to think it doesn't happen.  ;-)
>   No, I meant a cache thrashing problem. Suppose that we always readahead
> as much as user asks and there are say 100 processes each wanting to read 4
> MB.  Then you need to find 400 MB in the page cache so that all reads can
> fit.  And if you don't have them, reads for process 50 may evict pages we
> already preread for process 1, but process one didn't yet get to CPU to
> copy the data to userspace buffer. So the read becomes wasted.

Yeah, you're right, cache thrashing is an issue.  In my tests, I didn't
actually see the *initial* read come through as a full 1MB I/O, though.
That seems odd to me.

>> > Maybe 128 KB is a too small default these days but OTOH noone prevents you
>> > from raising it (e.g. SLES uses 1 MB as a default).
>> For some reason, I thought it had been bumped to 512KB by default.  Must
>> be that overactive imagination I have...  Anyway, if all of the distros
>> start bumping the default, don't you think it's time to consider bumping
>> it upstream, too?  I thought there was a lot of work put into not being
>> too aggressive on readahead, so the downside of having a larger
>> read_ahead_kb setting was fairly small.
>   Yeah, I believe 512KB should be pretty safe these days except for
> embedded world. OTOH average desktop user doesn't really care so it's
> mostly servers with beefy storage that care... (note that I wrote we raised
> the read_ahead_kb for SLES but not for openSUSE or SLED (desktop enterprise
> distro)).

Fair enough.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]