Hi Chao,
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 06:15:55PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaeg...@kernel.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 5:21 AM
> > To: Chao Yu
> > Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; linux-ker...@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...@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?
How about adding some limits likewise f2fs_write_data_pages whieh is for example
nr_pages_to_write?
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor Your Dynamic Infrastructure at Any Scale With Datadog!
Get real-time metrics from all of your servers, apps and tools
in one place.
SourceForge users - Click here to start your Free Trial of Datadog now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=241902991&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
