Re: [PATCH] fix readahead pipeline break caused by block plug
From: Shaohua Li <hidden>
Date: 2012-01-31 08:54:56
Also in:
lkml
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 09:48 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Le mardi 31 janvier 2012 A 15:59 +0800, Shaohua Li a A(C)crit :quoted
Herbert Poetzl reported a performance regression since 2.6.39. The test is a simple dd read, but with big block size. The reason is: T1: ra (A, A+128k), (A+128k, A+256k) T2: lock_page for page A, submit the 256k T3: hit page A+128K, ra (A+256k, A+384). the range isn't submitted because of plug and there isn't any lock_page till we hit page A+256k because all pages from A to A+256k is in memory T4: hit page A+256k, ra (A+384, A+ 512). Because of plug, the range isn't submitted again. T5: lock_page A+256k, so (A+256k, A+512k) will be submitted. The task is waitting for (A+256k, A+512k) finish. There is no request to disk in T3 and T4, so readahead pipeline breaks. We really don't need block plug for generic_file_aio_read() for buffered I/O. The readahead already has plug and has fine grained control when I/O should be submitted. Deleting plug for buffered I/O fixes the regression. One side effect is plug makes the request size 256k, the size is 128k without it. This is because default ra size is 128k and not a reason we need plug here. Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <redacted> Tested-by: Herbert Poetzl <redacted> Tested-by: Eric Dumazet <redacted>Hmm, this is not exactly the patch I tested from Wu Fengguang I'll test this one before adding my "Tested-by: ..."
That added lines should not matter. We still need plug for direct-io case. Really sorry for this, I should ask you test it before adding the Tested-by. Thanks, Shaohua -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>