On 04/18/2011 02:49 AM, liubo wrote:
On 04/16/2011 03:32 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 04/15/2011 03:24 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Sorry, but this is too ugly to live.  If the reason for this really is
good enough we'll just need to push the filemap_write_and_wait_range
and i_mutex locking into every ->fsync instance.

So part of what makes small fsyncs slow in btrfs is all of our random
threads to make checksumming not suck.  So we submit IO which spreads it
out to helper threads to do the checksumming, and then when it returns
it gets handed off to endio threads that run the endio stuff.  This
works awesome with doing big writes and such, but if say we're and RPM
database and write a couple of kilbytes, this tends to suck because we
keep handing work off to other threads and waiting, so the scheduling
latencies really hurt.

So we'd like to be able to say "hey this is a small amount of io, lets
just do the checksumming in the current thread", and the same with
handling the endio stuff.  We can't do that currently because
filemap_write_and_wait_range is called before we get to fsync.  We'd
like to be able to control this so we can do the appropriate magic to do
the submission within the fsyncings thread context in order to speed
things up a bit.

That plus the stuff I said about i_mutex.  Is that a good enough reason
to just push this down into all the filesystems?  Thanks,

Fine with the i_mutex.

I'm wandering that is it worth of doing so?

I've tested your patch with sysbench, and there is little improvement. :(

Yeah it's not a huge change for us, there are other places we need to work on, however things like ext4 could do well to not hold the i_mutex over a transaction commit. Just an example of how this could help us all in general, not just btrfs.

Sysbench args:
sysbench --test=fileio --num-threads=1 --file-num=10240 --file-block-size=1K 
--file-total-size=20M --file-test-mode=rndwr --file-io-mode=sync 
--file-extra-flags=  run

10240 files, 2Kb each
fsync_nolock (patch):
Operations performed:  0 Read, 10000 Write, 1024000 Other = 1034000 Total
Read 0b  Written 9.7656Mb  Total transferred 9.7656Mb  (35.152Kb/sec)
    35.15 Requests/sec executed

fsync (orig):
Operations performed:  0 Read, 10000 Write, 1024000 Other = 1034000 Total
Read 0b  Written 9.7656Mb  Total transferred 9.7656Mb  (35.287Kb/sec)
    35.29 Requests/sec executed

Seems that the improvement of avoiding threads interchange is not enough.

BTW, I'm trying to improve the fsync performance stuff, but mainly for large 
And I found that a large file will have a tremendous amount of csum items 
needed to
be flush into tree log during fsync().  Btrfs now uses a brute force approach to
ensure to get the most uptodate copies of everything, and this results in a bad
performance.  To change the brute way is bugging me a lot...

Yeah there are some things that could be done for this, I'm going to be spending a while here trying to squeeze as much performance out of fsync that we can get, though first I'm going to start with small fsyncs since that will be the most practical gain at the moment (think RPM databases). Thanks,

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to