From: Mingming <cmm@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: ext4 DIO read performance issue on SSD
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:27:25 -0700
Message-ID: <1255627645.4377.1109.camel@mingming-laptop>
References: <5df78e1d0910091634q22e6a372g3738b0d9e9d0e6c9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1255546117.4377.62.camel@mingming-laptop>
	 <5df78e1d0910141248h1f537863n97991585e6147ca7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1255553852.4377.63.camel@mingming-laptop>
	 <5df78e1d0910141442g680edac9m6bce0f9eb21f8ea6@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ext4 development <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	Michael Rubin <mrubin@google.com>,
	Manuel Benitez <rickyb@google.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Jiaying Zhang <jiayingz@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <5df78e1d0910141442g680edac9m6bce0f9eb21f8ea6@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 14:42 -0700, Jiaying Zhang wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Mingming <cmm@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 12:48 -0700, Jiaying Zhang wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Mingming <cmm@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 16:34 -0700, Jiaying Zhang wrote:
> >> >> Hello,
> >> >>
> >> >> Recently, we are evaluating the ext4 performance on a high speed SSD.
> >> >> One problem we found is that ext4 performance doesn't scale well with
> >> >> multiple threads or multiple AIOs reading a single file with O_DIRECT.
> >> >> E.g., with 4k block size, multiple-thread DIO AIO random read on ext4
> >> >> can lose up to 50% throughput compared to the results we get via RAW IO.
> >> >>
> >> >> After some initial analysis, we think the ext4 performance problem is caused
> >> >> by the use of i_mutex lock during DIO read. I.e., during DIO read, we grab
> >> >> the i_mutex lock in __blockdev_direct_IO because ext4 uses the default
> >> >> DIO_LOCKING from the generic fs code. I did a quick test by calling
> >> >> blockdev_direct_IO_no_locking() in ext4_direct_IO() and I saw ext4 DIO read
> >> >> got 99% performance as raw IO.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > This is very interesting...and impressive number.
> >> >
> >> > I tried to change ext4 to call blockdev_direct_IO_no_locking() directly,
> >> > but then realize that we can't do this all the time, as ext4 support
> >> > ext3 non-extent based files, and uninitialized extent is not support on
> >> > ext3 format file.
> >> >
> >> >> As we understand, the reason why we want to take i_mutex lock during DIO
> >> >> read is to prevent it from accessing stale data that may be exposed by a
> >> >> simultaneous write. We saw that Mingming Cao has implemented a patch set
> >> >> with which when a get_block request comes from direct write, ext4 only
> >> >> allocates or splits an uninitialized extent. That uninitialized extent
> >> >> will be marked as initialized at the end_io callback.
> >> >
> >> > Though I need to clarify that with all the patches in mainline, we only
> >> > treat new allocated blocks form direct io write to holes, not to writes
> >> > to the end of file. I actually have proposed to treat the write to the
> >> > end of file also as unintialized extents, but there is some concerns
> >> > that this getting tricky with updating inode size when it is async IO
> >> > direct IO. So it didn't getting done yet.
> >> >
> >> >>  We are wondering
> >> >> whether we can extend this idea to buffer write as well. I.e., we always
> >> >> allocate an uninitialized extent first during any write and convert it
> >> >> as initialized at the time of end_io callback. This will eliminate the need
> >> >> to hold i_mutex lock during direct read because a DIO read should never get
> >> >> a block marked initialized before the block has been written with new data.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Oh I don't think so. For buffered IO, the data is being copied to
> >> > buffer, direct IO read would first flush what's in page cache to disk,
> >>
> >> Hmm, do you mean the filemap_write_and_wait_range() in
> >> __blockdev_direct_IO?
> >
> > yes, that's the one to flush the page cache before direct read.
> >
> I don't think that function is called with DIO_NO_LOCKING.

Oh, I mean the filemap_write_and_wait_range() in generic_file_aio_read()

> Also, if we no longer hold i_mutex lock during dio read, I think
> there is a time window that a buffer write can allocate an
> initialize block after dio read flushes page cache but
> before it calls get_block. Then that dio read can get that
> initialized block with stale data.
> 

ah, I think it over, the key is prevent get_block() expose initialized
extent to direct read. concurrent buffered write to hole could result in
get_block() allocate blocks before direct IO read. That could be
addressed in a similar way we did for async direct IO write to hole...
> Jiaying
> 
> >> Or do we flush page cache after calling
> >> get_block in dio read?
> >>
> >> Jiaying
> >>
> >> > then read from disk. So if there is concurrent buffered write and direct
> >> > read, removing the i_mutex locks from the direct IO path should still
> >> > gurantee the right order, without having to treat buffered allocation
> >> > with uninitialized extent/end_io.
> >> >
> >> > The i_mutex lock, from my understanding, is there to protect direct IO
> >> > write to hole and concurrent direct IO read, we should able to remove
> >> > this lock for extent based ext4 file.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >> We haven't implemented anything yet because we want to ask here first to
> >> >> see whether this proposal makes sense to you.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > It does make sense to me.
> >> >
> >> > Mingming
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >>
> >> >> Jiaying
> >> >> --
> >> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> >> >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> >> >> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> >> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >
> >
> >
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html