On Wed 12-12-12 15:18:21, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 03:31:37AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 11-12-12 16:44:15, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > > Jan Kara <j...@suse.cz> writes:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I was looking into IO starvation problems where streaming sync writes
> > > > (in
> > > > my case from kjournald but DIO would look the same) starve reads. This
> > > > is
> > > > because reads happen in small chunks and until a request completes we
> > > > don't
> > > > start reading further (reader reads lots of small files) while writers
> > > > have
> > > > plenty of big requests to submit. Both processes end up fighting for IO
> > > > requests and writer writes nr_batching 512 KB requests while reader
> > > > reads
> > > > just one 4 KB request or so. Here the effect is magnified by the fact
> > > > that
> > > > the drive has relatively big queue depth so it usually takes longer than
> > > > BLK_BATCH_TIME to complete the read request. The net result is it takes
> > > > close to two minutes to read files that can be read under a second
> > > > without
> > > > writer load. Without the big drive's queue depth, results are not ideal
> > > > but
> > > > they are bearable - it takes about 20 seconds to do the reading. And for
> > > > comparison, when writer and reader are not competing for IO requests
> > > > (as it
> > > > happens when writes are submitted as async), it takes about 2 seconds to
> > > > complete reading.
> > > >
> > > > Simple reproducer is:
> > > >
> > > > echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
> > > > dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/f bs=1M count=10000 &
> > > > sleep 30
> > > > time cat /etc/* 2>&1 >/dev/null
> > > > killall dd
> > > > rm /tmp/f
> > >
> > > This is a buffered writer. How does it end up that you are doing all
> > > synchronous write I/O? Also, you forgot to mention what file system you
> > > were using, and which I/O scheduler.
> > So IO scheduler is CFQ, filesystem is ext3 - which is the culprit why IO
> > ends up being synchronous - in ext3 in data=ordered mode kjournald often
> > ends
> > up submitting all the data to disk and it can do it as WRITE_SYNC if
> > someone is
> > waiting for transaction commit. In theory this can happen with AIO DIO
> > writes or someone running fsync on a big file as well. Although when I
> > tried this now, I wasn't able to create as big problem as kjournald does
> > (a kernel thread submitting huge linked list of buffer heads in a tight loop
> > is hard to beat ;). Hum, so maybe just adding some workaround in kjournald
> > so that it's not as aggressive will solve the real world cases as well...
>
> Maybe kjournald shouldn't be using WRITE_SYNC for those buffers? I
> mean, if there is that many of them then it's really a batch
> submission an dthe latency of a single buffer IO is really
> irrelevant to the rate at which the buffers are flushed to disk....
Yeah, the idea why kjournald uses WRITE_SYNC is that we know someone is
waiting for transaction commit and that's pretty much definition of what
WRITE_SYNC means. Kjournald could keep using WRITE if we see we have tens
of megabytes of data in the commit. I'm just afraid that e.g. a process
doing large DIO overwrite (which is WRITE_SYNC as well) could starve
kjournald doing async IO and thus would effectively block any other fs
activity.
Hum, maybe if DIO wasn't using WRITE_SYNC (one could make similar
argument there as with kjournald). But then the definition of what
WRITE_SYNC should mean starts to be pretty foggy.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <j...@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
