From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE9CC433E0 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 05:22:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0963064DDA for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 05:22:34 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0963064DDA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 4A6118D0152; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 00:22:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 42E338D0140; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 00:22:34 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 2F8288D0152; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 00:22:34 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0130.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.130]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14EDA8D0140 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 00:22:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8A19824805A for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 05:22:33 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77822985786.03.level80_260a34827641 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A82B028A4E9 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 05:22:33 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: level80_260a34827641 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5256 Received: from mail-lf1-f53.google.com (mail-lf1-f53.google.com [209.85.167.53]) by imf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 05:22:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f53.google.com with SMTP id p21so13890892lfu.11 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 21:22:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=r7yF3z7ORk4Hs+lXeZICPrDRsFJoinna0ZNMygBvUq4=; b=TJGb4pg5/3nrFTftQGz/Z1+ruTsxgkng2tDMWmd2HnufWq/j3+ZEwfRb6KTJoNk0E0 fK7ZpQYejDCARUgqpiCFIQM2nK+AxdIDiQkU/cC6g1gDRMwCt3YZMbQlvl7rofEQfTC7 MIics0Dfz3qpW8GVc6HTEv0ttKfYFB3WRvo4e8+4YQ3uQbQ8PRwd8kMVmTmQdmqEnPwy CVYArxPC2Qpndro6LBALYqXMeGdf34550EoY0hSkM2zHuJDz2EA4SuvklCe2GiBDKXGF f8lyVZy8YKFcNLxrl3fTPlRWbL/B4meelbrH/mtAN+UC+Q53aYoVM0RCQDyxLcu1DZ+p F6+A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=r7yF3z7ORk4Hs+lXeZICPrDRsFJoinna0ZNMygBvUq4=; b=WQvc8pUQIgKTKNSgu1ik+MG4xJdrXRS9HBNMPu1iQzQPtXlA6UsK7FjvKbYLCgFZhg A7x6NfPNaZWVCQVU4qTJ4foLFOPcDs4NVKiMNGJqfoMdY8Kt9b3wD/Nix4RA/nItiZUw WZ+s4bFuj5RDlbQY0ha396QMLcBmOe153h4I21I/54fSw8mnqlIO4UBLBqLYEbRkzJqK EuiA1sqSDnCk1cfy9aGs0Lg1C0qtPpUcEsZT7pWVhFVzkyexF9v329D5N/DFMXN1Hrkv f8EZgcE4EWym9bkyCH+VMESyR/xJM8yLTKqx6beB4H9VYFEnipUprM0fHJUjvdJmJyhq fxCA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531q9EelksziHOcv6cQolVqbE4SqdzOMIhdWlPeMGFfVU34vu/vK Rq0W/GsWSyi7ksNSfuUca1oPa6RxMzL4QRU4muI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJytw/XzbIWleKkW+UNIXt86HNGxwpyD+NXYNCrONiCZVl2ZgbD2MAcasnzpl4KhIL873RGx/GWBBwdp2/0yqbw= X-Received: by 2002:a19:80d1:: with SMTP id b200mr11220680lfd.184.1613452951921; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 21:22:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <161340385320.1303470.2392622971006879777.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <9e49f96cd80eaf9c8ed267a7fbbcb4c6467ee790.camel@redhat.com> <20210216021015.GH2858050@casper.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20210216021015.GH2858050@casper.infradead.org> From: Steve French Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 23:22:20 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/33] Network fs helper library & fscache kiocb API [ver #3] To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Jeff Layton , David Howells , Trond Myklebust , Anna Schumaker , Steve French , Dominique Martinet , CIFS , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cachefs@redhat.com, Alexander Viro , linux-mm , linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel , linux-nfs , Linus Torvalds , David Wysochanski , LKML , William Kucharski Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:10 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 06:40:27PM -0600, Steve French wrote: > > It could be good if netfs simplifies the problem experienced by > > network filesystems on Linux with readahead on large sequential reads > > - where we don't get as much parallelism due to only having one > > readahead request at a time (thus in many cases there is 'dead time' > > on either the network or the file server while waiting for the next > > readpages request to be issued). This can be a significant > > performance problem for current readpages when network latency is long > > (or e.g. in cases when network encryption is enabled, and hardware > > offload not available so time consuming on the server or client to > > encrypt the packet). > > > > Do you see netfs much faster than currentreadpages for ceph? > > > > Have you been able to get much benefit from throttling readahead with > > ceph from the current netfs approach for clamping i/o? > > The switch from readpages to readahead does help in a couple of corner > cases. For example, if you have two processes reading the same file at > the same time, one will now block on the other (due to the page lock) > rather than submitting a mess of overlapping and partial reads. Do you have a simple repro example of this we could try (fio, dbench, iozone etc) to get some objective perf data? My biggest worry is making sure that the switch to netfs doesn't degrade performance (which might be a low bar now since current network file copy perf seems to signifcantly lag at least Windows), and in some easy to understand scenarios want to make sure it actually helps perf. -- Thanks, Steve