From: Zlatko Calusic <zlatko.calusic@iskon.hr>
To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext3 writeback mode slower than ordered mode?
Date: 11 Dec 2001 23:31:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874rmx2xtx.fsf@atlas.iskon.hr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20011210181809.J1919@redhat.com> ("Stephen C. Tweedie"'s message of "Mon, 10 Dec 2001 18:18:09 +0000")
"Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 08:46:02PM +0100, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
>
> > To sumarize:
> >
> > ext2 0.01s user 1.86s system 98% cpu 1.893 total
> > ext3/ordered 0.07s user 3.50s system 99% cpu 3.594 total
> > ext3/writeback 0.00s user 6.05s system 98% cpu 6.129 total
> >
> > What is strange is that not always I've been able to get different
> > results for writeback case (comparing to ordered), but when I get it,
> > it is repeatable.
>
> So it could be something as basic as disk layout or allocation
> pattern. Hmm.
Hm, I'm not that sure about disk layout, as nothing actually hits the
disk platter in these tests, but the latter reason is possible.
>
> Could you profile the kernel and see where writeback is spending all
> the time, in that case?
I have made a simple test and collected kernel profiling data. The
test consists of repetitive writing of a 100MB file (on a 768MB
machine) and immediately deleting it after the write is finished. In a
loop, 100 times.
ordered:
51611 total 0.0392
34550 default_idle 664.4231
4941 generic_file_write 3.0575
741 journal_dirty_metadata 1.9500
727 get_hash_table 4.5438
566 journal_add_journal_head 2.2109
561 do_get_write_access 0.4510
514 journal_get_write_access 5.5870
371 journal_cancel_revoke 2.0163
368 ext3_do_update_inode 0.4000
323 journal_unlock_journal_head 2.9907
311 ext3_new_block 0.1747
293 rmqueue 0.6315
272 ext3_get_inode_loc 0.7234
192 handle_IRQ_event 1.5484
182 __brelse 5.6875
175 ext3_get_block_handle 0.2701
174 kmem_cache_alloc 0.6493
161 ext3_commit_write 0.3073
147 journal_flushpage 0.5176
writeback:
53652 total 0.0407
23781 default_idle 457.3269
4700 generic_file_write 2.9084
2429 get_hash_table 15.1813
2026 journal_dirty_metadata 5.3316
1423 do_get_write_access 1.1439
1348 journal_get_write_access 14.6522
1056 journal_cancel_revoke 5.7391
1025 journal_add_journal_head 4.0039
869 ext3_new_block 0.4882
807 journal_unlock_journal_head 7.4722
755 ext3_do_update_inode 0.8207
580 ext3_get_inode_loc 1.5426
572 ext3_get_block_handle 0.8827
454 __brelse 14.1875
347 journal_flushpage 1.2218
329 rmqueue 0.7091
317 ext3_mark_iloc_dirty 4.4028
315 do_generic_file_read 0.2853
308 unlock_buffer 4.8125
Notice how the numbers for the writeback case are much bigger. But,
strange thing is that the total time hasn't changed?! So my program
reports half the throughput and profile numbers are much bigger for
the writeback case, but in both cases tests finish in about the same
time. Tell me I'm not goin' nuts?!
Yes, I have reseted the profile counter correctly between the
runs. Also, if I change to another writeback mounted partition (on the
same disk, nearby) it behaves normally (similar numbers as on the
ordered mounted one). Why is my /tmp so special? :)
***
And now, something completely different. When mounted in ordered mode,
and doing the test above (writing & deleting), kernel leaks memory. In
fact, such memory can be easily recovered, but still, such behaviour
makes unwanted memory pressure, forces stuff to disk too early and
even produces some swapping. Every time a file of 100MB was written
and unlinked immediately afterwards (before FS had a chance to commit
it to disk) ~100MB of memory stayed allocated. Looks like buffer heads
which are pinning page cache pages, but as I deleted a file, shouldn't
that memory be freed? Another writing and there goes another 100MB of
RAM...
This is how things looked just before the test (most of the memory free)
procs memory swap io system cpu
r b w swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id
0 0 0 50124 516816 40220 53356 0 0 0 60 1696 949 0 3 96
and after the test (memory gone)
procs memory swap io system cpu
r b w swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id
1 0 0 58888 99988 11608 35008 0 0 0 60 1546 924 0 1 99
/proc/slabinfo (the only suspicious entry)
buffer_head 134513 159440 96 3543 3986 1 : 252 126
I remind, that only happens when the partition is mounted in the
ordered mode.
OK, I know this is all confusing, but I'm just trying to help weed
bugs and maybe understand a thing or two about the ext3. :)
Regards,
--
Zlatko
--
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/
prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-12-11 22:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-12-08 21:10 Zlatko Calusic
2001-12-09 1:59 ` Andrew Morton
2001-12-09 12:58 ` Juan Piernas Canovas
2001-12-09 19:46 ` Zlatko Calusic
2001-12-10 18:18 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2001-12-11 22:31 ` Zlatko Calusic [this message]
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=874rmx2xtx.fsf@atlas.iskon.hr \
--to=zlatko.calusic@iskon.hr \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=sct@redhat.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