On 07/12/2012 02:04 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 08:13:51PM -0600, Liu Bo wrote:
>> While testing with my buffer read fio jobs[1], I find that btrfs does not
>> perform well enough.
>>
>> Here is a scenario in fio jobs:
>>
>> We have 4 threads, "t1 t2 t3 t4", starting to buffer read a same file,
>> and all of them will race on add_to_page_cache_lru(), and if one thread
>> successfully puts its page into the page cache, it takes the responsibility
>> to read the page's data.
>>
>> And what's more, reading a page needs a period of time to finish, in which
>> other threads can slide in and process rest pages:
>>
>> t1 t2 t3 t4
>> add Page1
>> read Page1 add Page2
>> | read Page2 add Page3
>> | | read Page3 add Page4
>> | | | read Page4
>> -----|------------|-----------|-----------|--------
>> v v v v
>> bio bio bio bio
>>
>> Now we have four bios, each of which holds only one page since we need to
>> maintain consecutive pages in bio. Thus, we can end up with far more bios
>> than we need.
>>
>> Here we're going to
>> a) delay the real read-page section and
>> b) try to put more pages into page cache.
>>
>> With that said, we can make each bio hold more pages and reduce the number
>> of bios we need.
>>
>> Here is some numbers taken from fio results:
>> w/o patch w patch
>> ------------- -------- ---------------
>> READ: 745MB/s +32% 987MB/s
>>
>> [1]:
>> [global]
>> group_reporting
>> thread
>> numjobs=4
>> bs=32k
>> rw=read
>> ioengine=sync
>> directory=/mnt/btrfs/
>>
>> [READ]
>> filename=foobar
>> size=2000M
>> invalidate=1
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <liubo2...@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> v1->v2: if we fail to make a allocation, just fall back to the old way to
>> read page.
>> fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
>> index 01c21b6..5c8ab6c 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
>> @@ -3549,6 +3549,11 @@ int extent_writepages(struct extent_io_tree *tree,
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> +struct pagelst {
>> + struct page *page;
>> + struct list_head lst;
>> +};
>> +
>
> I like this patch, its a big improvement for just a little timing
> change. Instead of doing the kmalloc of this struct, can you please
> change it to put a pagevec on the stack.
>
> The model would be:
>
> add a page to the pagevec array
> if pagevec full
> launch all the readpages
>
> This lets you avoid the kmalloc, and it is closer to how we solve
> similar problems in other parts of the kernel.
>
Yeah, but there is something different.
Actually my first attempt is doing this with struct pagevec, but pagevec has
a PAGEVEC_SIZE, which is limited to 14.
That means that at the worst case, we batch only 14 pages in a bio to submit.
However, a bio is able to contains at most 128 pages with my devices, that's the
reason why I turn to kmalloc another struct.
Here is some performance number:
w/o patch w pvec patch w kmalloc patch
------------- -------------- ---------------
READ: 745MB/s 880MB/s 987MB/s
So what do you think about it? I'm ok with both.
thanks,
liubo
--
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
