xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [BULK] Re: Some baseline tests on new hardware (was Re: [PATCH] xfs:

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [BULK] Re: Some baseline tests on new hardware (was Re: [PATCH] xfs: optimise CIL insertion during transaction commit [RFC])
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 21:54:19 -0400
Cc: <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fusionio.com; s=default; t=1373334862; bh=+r1DxK+EkIuDDB1LL1rHkTfTgw9odeVEcO+Lhigh6Zo=; h=To:From:In-Reply-To:CC:References:Subject:Date; b=l//xDf4zJgVQwiLev9VoV1NJNndUT0DYUGsEXhRosE2VmYJNoSsWbN4koizjBiHAs myiVljxQ6jDmB2FFnuJ5pmdtRP6KN6nj0i/6TbaeFSFs5wbcJbBoUmTMX1e3P/Ca1I bnqxBj55MCehI21nfbiEQOArjeBIWjQv6fADa9Uw=
In-reply-to: <20130709012614.GH3438@dastard>
References: <1372657476-9241-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130708124453.GC3438@dastard> <20130709011533.3855.97802@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130709012614.GH3438@dastard>
User-agent: alot/0.3.4
Quoting Dave Chinner (2013-07-08 21:26:14)
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 09:15:33PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Quoting Dave Chinner (2013-07-08 08:44:53)
> > > [cc fsdevel because after all the XFS stuff I did a some testing on
> > > mmotm w.r.t per-node LRU lock contention avoidance, and also some
> > > scalability tests against ext4 and btrfs for comparison on some new
> > > hardware. That bit ain't pretty. ]
> > > 
> > > And, well, the less said about btrfs unlinks the better:
> > > 
> > > +  37.14%  [kernel]  [k] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
> > > +  33.18%  [kernel]  [k] __write_lock_failed
> > > +  17.96%  [kernel]  [k] __read_lock_failed
> > > +   1.35%  [kernel]  [k] _raw_spin_unlock_irq
> > > +   0.82%  [kernel]  [k] __do_softirq
> > > +   0.53%  [kernel]  [k] btrfs_tree_lock
> > > +   0.41%  [kernel]  [k] btrfs_tree_read_lock
> > > +   0.41%  [kernel]  [k] do_raw_read_lock
> > > +   0.39%  [kernel]  [k] do_raw_write_lock
> > > +   0.38%  [kernel]  [k] btrfs_clear_lock_blocking_rw
> > > +   0.37%  [kernel]  [k] free_extent_buffer
> > > +   0.36%  [kernel]  [k] btrfs_tree_read_unlock
> > > +   0.32%  [kernel]  [k] do_raw_write_unlock
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi Dave,
> > 
> > Thanks for doing these runs.  At least on Btrfs the best way to resolve
> > the tree locking today is to break things up into more subvolumes.
> 
> Sure, but you can't do that most workloads. Only on specialised
> workloads (e.g. hashed directory tree based object stores) is this
> really a viable option....

Yes and no.  It makes a huge difference even when you have 8 procs all
working on the same 8 subvolumes.  It's not perfect but it's all I
have ;)

> 
> > I've
> > got another run at the root lock contention in the queue after I get
> > the skiplists in place in a few other parts of the Btrfs code.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how these new structures play out ;)

The skiplists don't translate well to the tree roots, so I'll probably
have to do something different there.  But I'll get the onion peeled one
way or another.

-chris

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>