Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <8e164532-c436-241f-33be-4b41f7f67235@i2se.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Aug 2022 12:17:14 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ext4: Fix performance regression with mballoc
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Ted Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc:     linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>,
        Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>,
        Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>
References: <20220823134508.27854-1-jack@suse.cz>
From:   Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220823134508.27854-1-jack@suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Jan,

Am 23.08.22 um 22:15 schrieb Jan Kara:
> Hello,
>
> So I have implemented mballoc improvements to avoid spreading allocations
> even with mb_optimize_scan=1. It fixes the performance regression I was able
> to reproduce with reaim on my test machine:
>
>                       mb_optimize_scan=0     mb_optimize_scan=1     patched
> Hmean     disk-1       2076.12 (   0.00%)     2099.37 (   1.12%)     2032.52 (  -2.10%)
> Hmean     disk-41     92481.20 (   0.00%)    83787.47 *  -9.40%*    90308.37 (  -2.35%)
> Hmean     disk-81    155073.39 (   0.00%)   135527.05 * -12.60%*   154285.71 (  -0.51%)
> Hmean     disk-121   185109.64 (   0.00%)   166284.93 * -10.17%*   185298.62 (   0.10%)
> Hmean     disk-161   229890.53 (   0.00%)   207563.39 *  -9.71%*   232883.32 *   1.30%*
> Hmean     disk-201   223333.33 (   0.00%)   203235.59 *  -9.00%*   221446.93 (  -0.84%)
> Hmean     disk-241   235735.25 (   0.00%)   217705.51 *  -7.65%*   239483.27 *   1.59%*
> Hmean     disk-281   266772.15 (   0.00%)   241132.72 *  -9.61%*   263108.62 (  -1.37%)
> Hmean     disk-321   265435.50 (   0.00%)   245412.84 *  -7.54%*   267277.27 (   0.69%)
>
> Stefan, can you please test whether these patches fix the problem for you as
> well? Comments & review welcome.

i tested the whole series against 5.19 and 6.0.0-rc2. In both cases the 
update process succeed which is a improvement, but the download + unpack 
duration ( ~ 7 minutes ) is not as good as with mb_optimize_scan=0 ( ~ 1 
minute ).

Unfortuntately i don't have much time this week and next week i'm in 
holidays.

Just a question, my tests always had MBCACHE=y . Is it possible that the 
mb_optimize_scan is counterproductive for MBCACHE in this case?

I'm asking because before the download the update script removes the 
files from the previous update process which already cause a high load.

Best regards

>
> 								Honza