From: Dmitry Shulyak <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Very low write throughput on file opened with O_SYNC/O_DSYNC
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 18:49:58 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAF-ewDp5i0MmY8Xw6XZDZZTJu_12EH9BuAFC59pEdhhp57c0dQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
With 48 threads i am getting 200 mb/s, about the same with 48 separate
uring instances.
With single uring instance (or with shared pool) - 60 mb/s.
fs - ext4, device - ssd.
On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 at 17:29, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 8/17/20 4:46 AM, Dmitry Shulyak wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I noticed in iotop that all writes are executed by the same thread
> > (io_wqe_worker-0). This is a significant problem if I am using files
> > with mentioned flags. Not the case with reads, requests are
> > multiplexed over many threads (note the different name
> > io_wqe_worker-1). The problem is not specific to O_SYNC, in the
> > general case I can get higher throughput with thread pool and regular
> > system calls, but specifically with O_SYNC the throughput is the same
> > as if I were using a single thread for writing.
> >
> > The setup is always the same, ring per thread with shared workers pool
> > (IORING_SETUP_ATTACH_WQ), and high submission rate. Also, it is
> > possible to get around this performance issue by using separate worker
> > pools, but then I have to load balance workload between many rings for
> > perf gains.
> >
> > I thought that it may have something to do with the IOSQE_ASYNC flag,
> > but setting it had no effect.
> >
> > Is it expected behavior? Are there any other solutions, except
> > creating many rings with isolated worker pools?
>
> This is done on purpose, as buffered writes end up being serialized
> on the inode mutex anyway. So if you spread the load over multiple
> workers, you generally just waste resources. In detail, writes to the
> same inode are serialized by io-wq, it doesn't attempt to run them
> in parallel.
>
> What kind of performance are you seeing with io_uring vs your own
> thread pool that doesn't serialize writes? On what fs and what kind
> of storage?
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-17 15:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-17 11:46 Very low write throughput on file opened with O_SYNC/O_DSYNC Dmitry Shulyak
2020-08-17 11:58 ` Dmitry Shulyak
2020-08-17 14:29 ` Jens Axboe
2020-08-17 15:49 ` Dmitry Shulyak [this message]
2020-08-17 16:17 ` Jens Axboe
2020-08-18 16:09 ` Dmitry Shulyak
2020-08-18 16:42 ` Jens Axboe
2020-08-19 7:55 ` Dmitry Shulyak
2020-08-21 13:43 ` Dmitry Shulyak
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=CAF-ewDp5i0MmY8Xw6XZDZZTJu_12EH9BuAFC59pEdhhp57c0dQ@mail.gmail.com \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/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