xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: working on extent locks for i_mutex

To: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: working on extent locks for i_mutex
From: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:26:49 +0800
Cc: Allison Henderson <achender@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tao Ma <tm@xxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=2F6rGZysBtfepa3Oed2edMjmtPyb5k836iOuX9Ico0I=; b=nTuz7H2JKkRVL4ynayyxHoG7/m5ZHH5Py2PGSm+vHiXVQMAJx8G2UyaJcJIWPzggxV c1kt8cpWLcAcQH/GNEgtxV8tAbM15Rc0vyaZRIw87hro9TEV0E537zW1po6CUGfLvDo5 NQu1tgQvnrEFKPWzUrWA30H1AmU3NC5fcSCjI=
In-reply-to: <1327007770.5899.66.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@xxxxxxxxxx>, Allison Henderson <achender@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tao Ma <tm@xxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <4F0F9E97.1090403@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120113043411.GH2806@dastard> <4F10992C.3070303@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120115235747.GA6922@dastard> <4F146275.8090304@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120118120223.GA4322@xxxxxxxxx> <1327007770.5899.66.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:16:10PM -0800, Frank Mayhar wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 20:02 +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > For this project, do you have a schedule? Would you like to share to me? 
> > This
> > lock contention heavily impacts the performance of direct IO in our 
> > production
> > environment. So we hope to improve it ASAP.
> > 
> > I have done some direct IO benchmarks to compare ext4 with xfs using fio
> > in Intel SSD. The result shows that, in direct IO, xfs outperforms ext4 and
> > ext4 with dioread_nolock.
> > 
> > To understand the effect of lock contention, I define a new function called 
> > ext4_file_aio_write() that calls __generic_file_aio_write() without 
> > acquiring 
> > i_mutex lock. Meanwhile, I remove DIO_LOCKING flag when 
> > __blockdev_direct_IO() 
> > is called and do the similar benchmarks. The result shows that the 
> > performance 
> > in ext4 is almost the same to the xfs. Thus, it proves that the i_mutex 
> > heavily
> > impacts the performance. Hopefully the result is useful for you. :-)
> 
> For the record, I have a patchset that, while not affecting i_mutex (or
> locking in general), does allow AIO append writes to actually be done
> asynchronously.  (Currently they're forced to be done synchronously.)
> It makes a big difference in performance for that particular case, even
> for spinning media.  Performance roughly doubled when testing with fio
> against a regular two-terabyte drive; the performance improvement
> against SSD would have to be much greater.
> 
> One day soon I'll accumulate enough spare time to port the patchset
> forward to the latest kernel and submit it here.
Interesting. I think it might help us to improve this issue. So could
you please post your test case and result in detail? Thank you. :-)

Regards,
Zheng

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