On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:17 PM, J. Bruce Fields [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 04:01:49PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 09:32:13PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Dave Chinner [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 09:11:01PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 04:38:12PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

quoted

quoted

It would be better to write zeros to it, so we aren't measuring the
cost of the unwritten->written conversion.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, how hard would it be to defer
this part until writeback?

Part of the work has to be done at write time because we need to
update allocation statistics (i.e., so that we don't have ENOSPC
problems).  The unwritten->written conversion does happen at writeback
(as does the actual block allocation if we are doing delayed
allocation).

The point is that if the goal is to measure page fault scalability, we
shouldn't have this other stuff happening as the same time as the page
fault workload.

Sure, but the real problem is not the block mapping or allocation
path - even if the test is changed to take that out of the picture,
we still have timestamp updates being done on every single page
fault. ext4, XFS and btrfs all do transactional timestamp updates
and have nanosecond granularity, so every page fault is resulting in
a transaction to update the timestamp of the file being modified.

I have (unmergeable) patches to fix this:

http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/92476

The big problem with this approach is that not doing the
timestamp update on page faults is going to break the inode change
version counting because for ext4, btrfs and XFS it takes a
transaction to bump that counter. NFS needs to know the moment a
file is changed in memory, not when it is written to disk.

I don't think the in-memory updates of the data and the version have to
be completely atomic, if that's what you mean.

quoted

Also, NFS
requires the change to the counter to be persistent over server
failures, so it needs to be changed as part of a transaction....

I'm not sure those two updates have to be a single atomic transaction on
disk, either.

I hope not, because they aren't currently in the same transaction, and
putting them in the same transaction require starting a transaction on
page fault and doing the equivalent of writepages when the same
transaction is committed.

With my changes [1], they still aren't, but putting them in the same
transaction would probably be only a couple lines of code, and it
would actually improve performance.  (I won't write those couple lines
of code because I don't know anything at all about jbd2.)

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/16/510

--Andy

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs