Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757271Ab2HUMKG (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:10:06 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:38024 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757196Ab2HUMKD (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:10:03 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,802,1336374000"; d="scan'208";a="207416443" Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:07:11 +0800 From: Fengguang Wu To: NeilBrown Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" , Marti Raudsepp , Kernel hackers , ext4 hackers , maze@google.com, "Shi, Alex" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux RAID , Li Shaohua Subject: Re: ext4 write performance regression in 3.6-rc1 on RAID0/5 Message-ID: <20120821120711.GA21736@localhost> References: <20120816024654.GB3781@thunk.org> <20120816111051.GA16036@localhost> <20120816152513.GA31346@thunk.org> <20120817060915.GB28786@localhost> <20120817134039.GB11439@thunk.org> <20120817142526.GA1059@localhost> <20120818064457.7e94d266@notabene.brown> <20120821094221.GA18919@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120821094221.GA18919@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4408 Lines: 113 On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 05:42:21PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 06:44:57AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:25:26 +0800 Fengguang Wu > > wrote: > > > > > [CC md list] > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 09:40:39AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 02:09:15PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > > > Ted, > > > > > > > > > > I find ext4 write performance dropped by 3.3% on average in the > > > > > 3.6-rc1 merge window. xfs and btrfs are fine. > > > > > > > > > > Two machines are tested. The performance regression happens in the > > > > > lkp-nex04 machine, which is equipped with 12 SSD drives. lkp-st02 does > > > > > not see regression, which is equipped with HDD drives. I'll continue > > > > > to repeat the tests and report variations. > > > > > > > > Hmm... I've checked out the commits in "git log v3.5..v3.6-rc1 -- > > > > fs/ext4 fs/jbd2" and I don't see anything that I would expect would > > > > cause that. The are the lock elimination changes for Direct I/O > > > > overwrites, but that shouldn't matter for your tests which are > > > > measuring buffered writes, correct? > > > > > > > > Is there any chance you could do me a favor and do a git bisect > > > > restricted to commits involving fs/ext4 and fs/jbd2? > > > > > > I noticed that the regressions all happen in the RAID0/RAID5 cases. > > > So it may be some interactions between the RAID/ext4 code? > > > > I'm aware of some performance regression in RAID5 which I will be drilling > > down into next week. Some things are faster, but some are slower :-( > > > > RAID0 should be unchanged though - I don't think I've changed anything there. > > > > Looking at your numbers, JBOD ranges from +6.5% to -1.5% > > RAID0 ranges from +4.0% to -19.2% > > RAID5 ranges from +20.7% to -39.7% > > > > I'm guessing + is good and - is bad? > > Yes. > > > The RAID5 numbers don't surprise me. The RAID0 do. > > You are right. I did more tests and it's now obvious that RAID0 is > mostly fine. The major regressions are in the RAID5 10/100dd cases. > JBOD is performing better in 3.6.0-rc1 :-) > > > > > > > I'll try to get some ext2/3 numbers, which should have less changes on the fs side. > > > > Thanks. That will be useful. > > Here are the more complete results. > > RAID5 ext4 100dd -7.3% > RAID5 ext4 10dd -2.2% > RAID5 ext4 1dd +12.1% > RAID5 ext3 100dd -3.1% > RAID5 ext3 10dd -11.5% > RAID5 ext3 1dd +8.9% > RAID5 ext2 100dd -10.5% > RAID5 ext2 10dd -5.2% > RAID5 ext2 1dd +10.0% > RAID0 ext4 100dd +1.7% > RAID0 ext4 10dd -0.9% > RAID0 ext4 1dd -1.1% > RAID0 ext3 100dd -4.2% > RAID0 ext3 10dd -0.2% > RAID0 ext3 1dd -1.0% > RAID0 ext2 100dd +11.3% > RAID0 ext2 10dd +4.7% > RAID0 ext2 1dd -1.6% > JBOD ext4 100dd +5.9% > JBOD ext4 10dd +6.0% > JBOD ext4 1dd +0.6% > JBOD ext3 100dd +6.1% > JBOD ext3 10dd +1.9% > JBOD ext3 1dd +1.7% > JBOD ext2 100dd +9.9% > JBOD ext2 10dd +9.4% > JBOD ext2 1dd +0.5% And here are the xfs/btrfs results. Very impressive RAID5 improvements! RAID5 btrfs 100dd +25.8% RAID5 btrfs 10dd +21.3% RAID5 btrfs 1dd +14.3% RAID5 xfs 100dd +32.8% RAID5 xfs 10dd +21.5% RAID5 xfs 1dd +25.2% RAID0 btrfs 100dd -7.4% RAID0 btrfs 10dd -0.2% RAID0 btrfs 1dd -2.8% RAID0 xfs 100dd +18.8% RAID0 xfs 10dd +0.0% RAID0 xfs 1dd +3.8% JBOD btrfs 100dd -0.0% JBOD btrfs 10dd +2.3% JBOD btrfs 1dd -0.1% JBOD xfs 100dd +8.3% JBOD xfs 10dd +4.1% JBOD xfs 1dd +0.1% Thanks, Fengguang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/