Fix regression in O_DIRECT|O_SYNC writes to block devices
PATCH 1/1 Fix regression in O_DIRECT|O_SYNC writes to block devices
We are seeing a large regression in database performance on recent kernels. The database opens a block device with O_DIRECT|O_SYNC and a number of threads write to different regions of the file at the same time.
A simple test case is below. I haven't defined DEVICE to anything since getting it wrong will destroy your data :) On an 3 disk LVM with a 64k chunk size we see about 17MB/sec and only a few threads in IO wait:
procs -----io---- -system-- -----cpu------
r b bi bo in cs us sy id wa st 0 3 0 16170 656 2259 0 0 86 14 0 0 2 0 16704 695 2408 0 0 92 8 0 0 2 0 17308 744 2653 0 0 86 14 0 0 2 0 17933 759 2777 0 0 89 10 0
Most threads are blocking in vfs_fsync_range, which has:
mutex_lock(&mapping->host->i_mutex);
err = fop->fsync(file, dentry, datasync);
if (!ret)
ret = err;
mutex_unlock(&mapping->host->i_mutex);Commit 148f948ba877f4d3cdef036b1ff6d9f68986706a (vfs: Introduce new helpers for syncing after writing to O_SYNC file or IS_SYNC inode) offers some explanation of what is going on:
Use these new helpers for syncing from generic VFS functions. This makes O_SYNC writes to block devices acquire i_mutex for syncing. If we really care about this, we can make block_fsync() drop the i_mutex and reacquire it before it returns.
Thanks Jan for such a good commit message! The patch below drops the i_mutex in blkdev_fsync as suggested. With it the testcase improves from 17MB/s to 68M/sec:
procs -----io---- -system-- -----cpu------
r b bi bo in cs us sy id wa st
0 7 0 65536 1000 3878 0 0 70 30 0 0 34 0 69632 1016 3921 0 1 46 53 0 0 57 0 69632 1000 3921 0 0 55 45 0 0 53 0 69640 754 4111 0 0 81 19 0
I'd appreciate any comments from the I/O guys on if this is the right approach.
Testcase:
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#define NR_THREADS 64
#define BUFSIZE (64 * 1024)
#define DEVICE "/dev/mapper/XXXXXX"
#define ALIGN(VAL, SIZE) (((VAL)+(SIZE)-1) & ~((SIZE)-1))
static int fd;
static void *doit(void *arg)
{
unsigned long offset = (long)arg;
char *b, *buf;
b = malloc(BUFSIZE + 1024);
buf = (char *)ALIGN((unsigned long)b, 1024);
memset(buf, 0, BUFSIZE);
while (1)
pwrite(fd, buf, BUFSIZE, offset);
}int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int flags = O_RDWR|O_DIRECT;
int i;
unsigned long offset = 0;
if (argc > 1 && !strcmp(argv[1], "O_SYNC"))
flags |= O_SYNC;
fd = open(DEVICE, flags);
if (fd == -1) {
perror("open");
exit(1);
}
for (i = 0; i < NR_THREADS-1; i++) {
pthread_t tid;
pthread_create(&tid, NULL, doit, (void *)offset);
offset += BUFSIZE;
}
doit((void *)offset);
return 0;
}---
fs/block_dev.c +10 -2
@@ -406,16 +406,24 @@ static loff_t block_llseek(struct file *int blkdev_fsync (struct file *filp,struct dentry *dentry,int datasync) { -struct block_device *bdev =I_BDEV (filp->f_mapping->host); +struct inode *bd_inode = filp->f_mapping->host; +struct block_device *bdev =I_BDEV (bd_inode);int error; +mutex_unlock (&bd_inode->i_mutex); + error =sync_blockdev (bdev); -if (error) +if (error) { +mutex_lock (&bd_inode->i_mutex);return error; + } error =blkdev_issue_flush (bdev,NULL );if (error == -EOPNOTSUPP ) error =0 ; + +mutex_lock (&bd_inode->i_mutex); +return error; }EXPORT_SYMBOL (blkdev_fsync);
Jan Kara
reviewerQuoted 16 lines · Anton Blanchard
We are seeing a large regression in database performance on recent kernels. The database opens a block device with O_DIRECT|O_SYNC and a number of threads write to different regions of the file at the same time.
A simple test case is below. I haven't defined DEVICE to anything since getting it wrong will destroy your data :) On an 3 disk LVM with a 64k chunk size we see about 17MB/sec and only a few threads in IO wait:
procs -----io---- -system-- -----cpu------
r b bi bo in cs us sy id wa st 0 3 0 16170 656 2259 0 0 86 14 0 0 2 0 16704 695 2408 0 0 92 8 0 0 2 0 17308 744 2653 0 0 86 14 0 0 2 0 17933 759 2777 0 0 89 10 0
Quoted 7 lines
Most threads are blocking in
vfs_fsync_range, which has:mutex_lock(&mapping->host->i_mutex); err = fop->fsync(file, dentry, datasync); if (!ret) ret = err; mutex_unlock(&mapping->host->i_mutex);
...
Just a few style nitpicks:
fs/block_dev.c static loff_t block_llseek(struct file * · line 412
Quoted 13 lines
Index:
linux-2.6/fs/block_dev.c
===================================================================fs/block_dev.c +2
-1@@ -406,16 +406,24 @@ static loff_t block_llseek(struct file *int blkdev_fsync (struct file *filp,struct dentry *dentry,int datasync) { -struct block_device *bdev =I_BDEV (filp->f_mapping->host); +struct inode *bd_inode = filp->f_mapping->host; +struct block_device *bdev =I_BDEV (bd_inode);int error;
Could you please add a comment here? Like "There is no need to
protect syncing of the block device by i_mutex and it unnecessarily serializes workloads with several O_SYNC writers to the block device"
fs/block_dev.c static loff_t block_llseek(struct file * · line 418
Quoted 7 lines
fs/block_dev.c +4
-1+mutex_unlock (&bd_inode->i_mutex); + error =sync_blockdev (bdev); -if (error) +if (error) { +mutex_lock (&bd_inode->i_mutex);return error;
Usually, "goto out" is preferred instead of the above.
fs/block_dev.c static loff_t block_llseek(struct file * · line 424
Quoted 6 lines
fs/block_dev.c +2
-0+ } error =blkdev_issue_flush (bdev,NULL );if (error == -EOPNOTSUPP ) error =0 ; +
And define out: here.
fs/block_dev.c static loff_t block_llseek(struct file * · line 429
Quoted 5 lines
fs/block_dev.c +2
-0+mutex_lock (&bd_inode->i_mutex); +return error; }EXPORT_SYMBOL (blkdev_fsync);
Honza
Signature · 2 lines
Jan Kara <[email protected]> SUSE Labs, CR
Quoted 37 lines · Anton Blanchard
We are seeing a large regression in database performance on recent kernels. The database opens a block device with O_DIRECT|O_SYNC and a number of threads write to different regions of the file at the same time.
A simple test case is below. I haven't defined DEVICE to anything since getting it wrong will destroy your data :) On an 3 disk LVM with a 64k chunk size we see about 17MB/sec and only a few threads in IO wait:
procs -----io---- -system-- -----cpu------
r b bi bo in cs us sy id wa st 0 3 0 16170 656 2259 0 0 86 14 0 0 2 0 16704 695 2408 0 0 92 8 0 0 2 0 17308 744 2653 0 0 86 14 0 0 2 0 17933 759 2777 0 0 89 10 0Most threads are blocking in
vfs_fsync_range, which has:mutex_lock(&mapping->host->i_mutex); err = fop->fsync(file, dentry, datasync); if (!ret) ret = err; mutex_unlock(&mapping->host->i_mutex);Commit
148f948ba877f4d3cdef036b1ff6d9f68986706a(vfs: Introduce new helpers for syncing after writing toO_SYNCfile orIS_SYNCinode) offers some explanation of what is going on:Use these new helpers for syncing from generic VFS functions. This makes
O_SYNCwrites to block devices acquirei_mutexfor syncing. If we really care about this, we can makeblock_fsync()drop thei_mutexand reacquire it before it returns.Thanks Jan for such a good commit message! The patch below drops the
i_mutexinblkdev_fsyncas suggested. With it the testcase improves from 17MB/s to 68M/sec:
Quoted 8 lines
procs -----io---- -system-- -----cpu------
r b bi bo in cs us sy id wa st0 7 0 65536 1000 3878 0 0 70 30 0 0 34 0 69632 1016 3921 0 1 46 53 0 0 57 0 69632 1000 3921 0 0 55 45 0 0 53 0 69640 754 4111 0 0 81 19 0I'd appreciate any comments from the I/O guys on if this is the right approach.
Looks good to me, I see Jan already made a few style suggestions.
Signature · 1 line
Jens Axboe
fs/block_dev.c static loff_t block_llseek(struct file * · line 415
Quoted 10 lines · Anton Blanchard
int
blkdev_fsync(struct file *filp, struct dentry *dentry, int datasync){fs/block_dev.c +4
-1-struct block_device *bdev =I_BDEV (filp->f_mapping->host); +struct inode *bd_inode = filp->f_mapping->host; +struct block_device *bdev =I_BDEV (bd_inode);int error; +mutex_unlock (&bd_inode->i_mutex); + error =sync_blockdev (bdev);
Actually you can just drop this call entirely. sync_blockdev is an overcomplicated alias for filemap_write_and_wait on the block device inode, which is exactl what we did just before calling into ->fsync
It might be worth to still drop i_mutex for the cache flush, though.
Jan Kara
reviewerQuoted 16 lines · Christoph Hellwig
fs/block_dev.c static loff_t block_llseek(struct file * · line 415
Quoted 10 lines · Anton Blanchard
int
blkdev_fsync(struct file *filp, struct dentry *dentry, int datasync){fs/block_dev.c +4
-1-struct block_device *bdev =I_BDEV (filp->f_mapping->host); +struct inode *bd_inode = filp->f_mapping->host; +struct block_device *bdev =I_BDEV (bd_inode);int error; +mutex_unlock (&bd_inode->i_mutex); + error =sync_blockdev (bdev);Actually you can just drop this call entirely.
sync_blockdevis an overcomplicated alias forfilemap_write_and_waiton the block device inode, which is exactl what we did just before calling into ->fsync
Quoted 1 line
It might be worth to still drop
i_mutexfor the cache flush, though.
Yeah, that's a good point... Anton, just remove sync_blockdev() fromblkdev_fsync completely please.
Honza
Signature · 2 lines
Jan Kara <[email protected]> SUSE Labs, CR
Hi,
Quoted 5 lines
Actually you can just drop this call entirely.
sync_blockdevis an overcomplicated alias forfilemap_write_and_waiton the block device inode, which is exactl what we did just before calling into ->fsyncIt might be worth to still drop
i_mutexfor the cache flush, though.
Thanks for the feedback Jan + Christoph. New patch on the way.
Anton
PATCH 1/1 Fix regression in O_DIRECT|O_SYNC writes to block devices
In reply to Christoph HellwigWe are seeing a large regression in database performance on recent kernels. The database opens a block device with O_DIRECT|O_SYNC and a number of threads write to different regions of the file at the same time.
A simple test case is below. I haven't defined DEVICE since getting it wrong will destroy your data :) On an 3 disk LVM with a 64k chunk size we see about 17MB/sec and only a few threads in IO wait:
procs -----io---- -system-- -----cpu------
r b bi bo in cs us sy id wa st 0 3 0 16170 656 2259 0 0 86 14 0 0 2 0 16704 695 2408 0 0 92 8 0 0 2 0 17308 744 2653 0 0 86 14 0 0 2 0 17933 759 2777 0 0 89 10 0
Most threads are blocking in vfs_fsync_range, which has:
mutex_lock(&mapping->host->i_mutex);
err = fop->fsync(file, dentry, datasync);
if (!ret)
ret = err;
mutex_unlock(&mapping->host->i_mutex);commit 148f948ba877f4d3cdef036b1ff6d9f68986706a (vfs: Introduce new helpers for syncing after writing to O_SYNC file or IS_SYNC inode) offers some explanation of what is going on:
Use these new helpers for syncing from generic VFS functions. This makes O_SYNC writes to block devices acquire i_mutex for syncing. If we really care about this, we can make block_fsync() drop the i_mutex and reacquire it before it returns.
Thanks Jan for such a good commit message! As well as dropping i_mutex, Christoph suggests we should remove the call to sync_blockdev():
Quoted 3 lines
sync_blockdevis an overcomplicated alias forfilemap_write_and_waiton the block device inode, which is exactly what we did just before calling into ->fsync
The patch below incorporates both suggestions. With it the testcase improves from 17MB/s to 68M/sec:
procs -----io---- -system-- -----cpu------
r b bi bo in cs us sy id wa st
0 7 0 65536 1000 3878 0 0 70 30 0 0 34 0 69632 1016 3921 0 1 46 53 0 0 57 0 69632 1000 3921 0 0 55 45 0 0 53 0 69640 754 4111 0 0 81 19 0
Testcase:
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#define NR_THREADS 64
#define BUFSIZE (64 * 1024)
#define DEVICE "/dev/mapper/XXXXXX"
#define ALIGN(VAL, SIZE) (((VAL)+(SIZE)-1) & ~((SIZE)-1))
static int fd;
static void *doit(void *arg)
{
unsigned long offset = (long)arg;
char *b, *buf;
b = malloc(BUFSIZE + 1024);
buf = (char *)ALIGN((unsigned long)b, 1024);
memset(buf, 0, BUFSIZE);
while (1)
pwrite(fd, buf, BUFSIZE, offset);
}int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int flags = O_RDWR|O_DIRECT;
int i;
unsigned long offset = 0;
if (argc > 1 && !strcmp(argv[1], "O_SYNC"))
flags |= O_SYNC;
fd = open(DEVICE, flags);
if (fd == -1) {
perror("open");
exit(1);
}
for (i = 0; i < NR_THREADS-1; i++) {
pthread_t tid;
pthread_create(&tid, NULL, doit, (void *)offset);
offset += BUFSIZE;
}
doit((void *)offset);
return 0;
}---
fs/block_dev.c +12 -5
@@ -406,16 +406,23 @@ static loff_t block_llseek(struct file *int blkdev_fsync (struct file *filp,struct dentry *dentry,int datasync) { -struct block_device *bdev =I_BDEV (filp->f_mapping->host); +struct inode *bd_inode = filp->f_mapping->host; +struct block_device *bdev =I_BDEV (bd_inode);int error; - error =sync_blockdev (bdev); -if (error) -return error; - +/* +* There is no need to serialise calls to blkdev_issue_flush with +* i_mutex and doing so causes performance issues with concurrent +* O_SYNC writers to a block device. +*/ +mutex_unlock (&bd_inode->i_mutex); + error =blkdev_issue_flush (bdev,NULL );if (error == -EOPNOTSUPP ) error =0 ; + +mutex_lock (&bd_inode->i_mutex); +return error; }EXPORT_SYMBOL (blkdev_fsync);
On Tue 20-04-10 12:30:47, Anton Blanchard wrote:
<snip>
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Anton Blanchard <[email protected]>
The patch looks good to me now.
Quoted 33 lines
Index:
linux-2.6/fs/block_dev.c
===================================================================fs/block_dev.c +12
-5@@ -406,16 +406,23 @@ static loff_t block_llseek(struct file *int blkdev_fsync (struct file *filp,struct dentry *dentry,int datasync) { -struct block_device *bdev =I_BDEV (filp->f_mapping->host); +struct inode *bd_inode = filp->f_mapping->host; +struct block_device *bdev =I_BDEV (bd_inode);int error; - error =sync_blockdev (bdev); -if (error) -return error; - +/* +* There is no need to serialise calls to blkdev_issue_flush with +* i_mutex and doing so causes performance issues with concurrent +* O_SYNC writers to a block device. +*/ +mutex_unlock (&bd_inode->i_mutex); + error =blkdev_issue_flush (bdev,NULL );if (error == -EOPNOTSUPP ) error =0 ; + +mutex_lock (&bd_inode->i_mutex); +return error; }EXPORT_SYMBOL (blkdev_fsync);
Signature · 2 lines
Jan Kara <[email protected]> SUSE Labs, CR