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;
Date:   Wed, 24 Aug 2022 12:40:10 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Ted Tso <tytso@mit.edu>,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>,
        Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>,
        Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ext4: Fix performance regression with mballoc
Message-ID: <20220824104010.4qvw46zmf42te53n@quack3>
References: <20220823134508.27854-1-jack@suse.cz>
 <8e164532-c436-241f-33be-4b41f7f67235@i2se.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8e164532-c436-241f-33be-4b41f7f67235@i2se.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Stefan!

On Wed 24-08-22 12:17:14, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> 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 ).

OK, thanks for testing! I'll try to check specifically untar whether I can
still see some differences in the IO pattern on my test machine.

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

No problem.

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

MBCACHE (despite similar name) is actually related to extended attributes
so it likely has no impact on your workload.

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

Do you mean already the removal step is noticeably slower with
mb_optimize_scan=1? The removal will be modifying directory blocks, inode
table blocks, block & inode bitmaps, and group descriptors. So if block
allocations are more spread (due to mb_optimize_scan=1 used during the
untar), the removal may also take somewhat longer.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR