Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:48:34 -0700 | From | Jaegeuk Kim <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/7] f2fs: enhance multithread dio write performance |
| |
Hi Chao,
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 08:52:10PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > Hi Jaegeuk, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@kernel.org] > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 2:13 AM > > To: Chao Yu > > Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] f2fs: enhance multithread dio write performance > > > > Hi Chao, > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 06:15:55PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > > > Hi Jaegeuk, > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@kernel.org] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 5:21 AM > > > > To: Chao Yu > > > > Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] f2fs: enhance multithread dio write performance > > > > > > > > Hi Chao, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 02:41:53PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > > > > > When dio writes perform concurrently, our performace will be low because of > > > > > Thread A's allocation of multi continuous blocks will be break by Thread B, > > > > > there are two cases as below: > > > > > - In Thread B, we may change current segment to a new segment for LFS > > > > > allocation if we dio write in the beginning of the file. > > > > > - In Thread B, we may allocate blocks in the middle of Thread A's > > > > > allocation, which make blocks which allocated in Thread A being > > > > > discontinuous. > > > > > > > > > > This patch adds writepages mutex lock to make block allocation in dio write > > > > > atomic to avoid above issues. > > > > > > > > > > Test environment: > > > > > ubuntu os with linux kernel 4.2+, intel i7-3770, 16g memory, > > > > > 32g kingston sd card. > > > > > > > > > > fio --name seqw --ioengine=sync --invalidate=1 --rw=write --directory=/mnt/f2fs > > > > --filesize=256m --size=16m --bs=2m --direct=1 > > > > > --numjobs=10 > > > > > > > > > > before: > > > > > WRITE: io=163840KB, aggrb=3145KB/s, minb=314KB/s, maxb=411KB/s, mint=39836msec, > > > > maxt=52083msec > > > > > > > > > > patched: > > > > > WRITE: io=163840KB, aggrb=10033KB/s, minb=1003KB/s, maxb=1124KB/s, mint=14565msec, > > > > maxt=16329msec > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <chao2.yu@samsung.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > fs/f2fs/data.c | 13 ++++++++++--- > > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c > > > > > index a737ca5..a0a5849 100644 > > > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c > > > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c > > > > > @@ -1536,7 +1536,9 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter > > *iter, > > > > > struct file *file = iocb->ki_filp; > > > > > struct address_space *mapping = file->f_mapping; > > > > > struct inode *inode = mapping->host; > > > > > + struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(inode); > > > > > size_t count = iov_iter_count(iter); > > > > > + int rw = iov_iter_rw(iter); > > > > > int err; > > > > > > > > > > /* we don't need to use inline_data strictly */ > > > > > @@ -1555,12 +1557,17 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter > > > > *iter, > > > > > > > > > > trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter)); > > > > > > > > > > - if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) > > > > > + if (rw == WRITE) { > > > > > + mutex_lock(&sbi->writepages); > > > > > > > > Why do we have to share sbi->writepages? > > > > > > The root cause of this issue is that: in f2fs, we have no suitable > > > dispatcher which can do the following things as an atomic operation: > > > a) allocate position(s) in flash device for current block(s); > > > b) submit user data in allocated position(s) in block layer. > > > > > > Without the dispatcher, we will suffer performance issue in following > > > scenario: > > > Thread A Thread B Thread C > > > allocate pos+1 > > > allocate pos+2 > > > allocate pos+3 > > > submit pos+1 > > > submit pos+3 > > > submit pos+2 > > > > > > Our final submitting series will: pos+1, pos+3, pos+2, this makes f2fs > > > running into non-LFS mode, therefore resulting in bad performance. > > > > > > writepages mutex lock supply us with a good solution for above issue. > > > It not only make the allocating and submitting pair executing atomically, > > > but also reduce the fragmentation for one file since we submit blocks > > > belong to single inode as continuous as possible. > > > > > > So here I choose to use writepages mutex lock to fix the performance > > > issue caused by both dio write vs dio write and dio write vs buffered > > > write. > > > > Understood, but the concern was the multi-thread performance as you mentioned. > > If one thread throws a big dio request, anybody cannot write at all? > > Buffered write will not be stopped, but actually my way completely stops the > concurrency of multithreads which are doing dio writes, for aspect of improving > concurrency, moving mutex_unlock below __allocate_data_blocks is a good solution > so far. > > > How about adding some limits likewise f2fs_write_data_pages whieh is for example > > nr_pages_to_write? > > Could you share more details about your idea? > > As Yunlei reported, there is performance regression issue, so how about > holding this patch and let me do some investigation?
It seems there is a mutex overhead when handling a bunch of 4KB small dios. Hmm, I meant, how about serializing pretty long-sized dios only?
> > Thanks, > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > If I'm missing something, please correct me. > > > > > > > > > > > > __allocate_data_blocks(inode, offset, count); > > > > > > > > If the problem lies on the misaligned blocks, how about calling mutex_unlock > > > > here? > > > > > > When changing to unlock here, I got regression when testing with following command: > > > fio --name seqw --ioengine=sync --invalidate=1 --rw=write --directory=/mnt/f2fs > > --filesize=256m --size=4m --bs=64k --direct=1 > > > --numjobs=20 > > > > > > unlock here: > > > WRITE: io=81920KB, aggrb=5802KB/s, minb=290KB/s, maxb=292KB/s, mint=14010msec, > > maxt=14119msec > > > unlock after dio finished: > > > WRITE: io=81920KB, aggrb=6088KB/s, minb=304KB/s, maxb=1081KB/s, mint=3786msec, > > maxt=13454msec > > > > > > So how about keep it in original place in this patch? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > > err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, offset, get_data_block_dio); > > > > > - if (err < 0 && iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) > > > > > - f2fs_write_failed(mapping, offset + count); > > > > > + if (rw == WRITE) { > > > > > + mutex_unlock(&sbi->writepages); > > > > > + if (err) > > > > > + f2fs_write_failed(mapping, offset + count); > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > > trace_f2fs_direct_IO_exit(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter), err); > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.4.2
| |