From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Chris Webb <chris@arachsys.com>,
balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
KVM development list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RF C/T/D] Unmapped page cache control - via boot parameter
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:06:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BA10C07.7000904@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100317165725.GB29548@lst.de>
On 03/17/2010 06:57 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 06:40:30PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Chris, can you carry out an experiment? Write a program that pwrite()s
>> a byte to a file at the same location repeatedly, with the file opened
>> using O_SYNC. Measure the write rate, and run blktrace on the host to
>> see what the disk (/dev/sda, not the volume) sees. Should be a (write,
>> flush, write, flush) per pwrite pattern or similar (for writing the data
>> and a journal block, perhaps even three writes will be needed).
>>
>> Then scale this across multiple guests, measure and trace again. If
>> we're lucky, the flushes will be coalesced, if not, we need to work on it.
>>
> As the person who has written quite a bit of the current O_SYNC
> implementation and also reviewed the rest of it I can tell you that
> those flushes won't be coalesced. If we always rewrite the same block
> we do the cache flush from the fsync method and there's is nothing
> to coalesced it there. If you actually do modify metadata (e.g. by
> using the new real O_SYNC instead of the old one that always was O_DSYNC
> that I introduced in 2.6.33 but that isn't picked up by userspace yet)
> you might hit a very limited transaction merging window in some
> filesystems, but it's generally very small for a good reason. If it
> were too large we'd make the once progress wait for I/O in another just
> because we might expect transactions to coalesced later. There's been
> some long discussion about that fsync transaction batching tuning
> for ext3 a while ago.
>
I definitely don't expect flush merging for a single guest, but for
multiple guests there is certainly an opportunity for merging. Most
likely we don't take advantage of it and that's one of the problems.
Copying data into pagecache so that we can merge the flushes seems like
a very unsatisfactory implementation.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-17 17:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-15 7:22 Balbir Singh
2010-03-15 7:48 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-15 8:07 ` Balbir Singh
2010-03-15 8:27 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-15 9:17 ` Balbir Singh
2010-03-15 9:27 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-15 10:45 ` Balbir Singh
2010-03-15 18:48 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-03-16 9:05 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-19 7:23 ` Dave Hansen
2010-03-15 20:23 ` Chris Webb
2010-03-15 23:43 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-03-16 0:43 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-03-16 1:27 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-03-16 8:19 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-03-17 15:14 ` Chris Webb
2010-03-17 15:55 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-03-17 16:27 ` Chris Webb
2010-03-22 21:04 ` Chris Webb
2010-03-22 21:07 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-22 21:10 ` Chris Webb
2010-03-17 16:27 ` Balbir Singh
2010-03-17 17:05 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-03-17 19:11 ` Chris Webb
2010-03-16 3:16 ` Balbir Singh
2010-03-16 9:17 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-16 9:54 ` Kevin Wolf
2010-03-16 10:16 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-16 10:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-03-16 10:36 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-16 10:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-03-16 11:08 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-16 14:27 ` Balbir Singh
2010-03-16 15:59 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-17 8:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-03-17 9:10 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-17 15:24 ` Chris Webb
2010-03-17 16:22 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-17 16:40 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-17 16:47 ` Chris Webb
2010-03-17 16:53 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-17 16:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-03-17 17:03 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-17 16:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-03-17 17:06 ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2010-03-17 16:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-03-17 17:02 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-15 15:46 ` Randy Dunlap
2010-03-16 3:21 ` Balbir Singh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4BA10C07.7000904@redhat.com \
--to=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=chris@arachsys.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox