From: Saeed Mirzamohammadi <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Phoronix pts fio io_uring test regression report on upstream v6.1 and v5.15
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 00:22:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DM5PR10MB14190335EEB0AEF2B48DF6BAF1CE9@DM5PR10MB1419.namprd10.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Hi Jens,
I applied your patch (with a minor conflict in xfs_file_open() since FMODE_BUF_WASYNC isn't in v5.15) and did the same series of tests on the v5.15 kernel. All the io_uring benchmarks regressed 20-45% after it. I haven't tested on v6.1 yet.
Thanks,
Saeed
________________________________________
From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 8:12 PM
To: Saeed Mirzamohammadi; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Phoronix pts fio io_uring test regression report on upstream v6.1 and v5.15
On 1/19/23 2:36?PM, Saeed Mirzamohammadi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm reporting a performance regression after the commit below on
> phoronix pts/fio test and with the config that is added in the end of
> this email:
>
> Link: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KM7c30r4OiqvkxVW44cyWb3rZr85i28yKto8WAAcj8OgWAOp-ebzcrHuggGw96ivMFCARikAEWwjhUBYFqujONc$
>
> commit 7b3188e7ed54102a5dcc73d07727f41fb528f7c8
> Author: Jens Axboe [email protected]
> Date: Mon Aug 30 19:37:41 2021 -0600
>
> io_uring: IORING_OP_WRITE needs hash_reg_file set
>
> We observed regression on the latest v6.1.y and v5.15.y upstream
> kernels (Haven't tested other stable kernels). We noticed that
> performance regression improved 45% after the revert of the commit
> above.
>
> All of the benchmarks below have experienced around ~45% regression.
> phoronix-pts-fio-1.15.0-RandomWrite-EngineIO_uring-BufferedNo-DirectYes-BlockSize4KB-MB-s_xfs
> phoronix-pts-fio-1.15.0-SequentialWrite-EngineIO_uring-BufferedNo-DirectYes-BlockSize4KB-MB-s_xfs
> phoronix-pts-fio-1.15.0-SequentialWrite-EngineIO_uring-BufferedYes-DirectNo-BlockSize4KB-MB-s_xfs
>
> We tend to see this regression on 4KB BlockSize tests.
>
> We tried out changing force_async but that has no effect on the
> result. Also, backported a modified version of the patch mentioned
> here (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/7/20/854__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KM7c30r4OiqvkxVW44cyWb3rZr85i28yKto8WAAcj8OgWAOp-ebzcrHuggGw96ivMFCARikAEWwjhUBYbOxQftI$ ) but that didn't affect
> performance.
>
> Do you have any suggestions on any fixes or what else we can try to
> narrow down the issue?
This is really mostly by design - the previous approach of not hashing
buffered writes on regular files would cause a lot of inode lock
contention due to lots of threads hammering on that.
That said, for XFS, we don't need to serialize on O_DIRECT writes. Don't
think we currently have a way to detect this as it isn't really
advertised. Something like the below might work, with the caveat that
this is totally untested.
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
index 595a5bcf46b9..85fdc6f2efa4 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
@@ -1171,7 +1171,8 @@ xfs_file_open(
{
if (xfs_is_shutdown(XFS_M(inode->i_sb)))
return -EIO;
- file->f_mode |= FMODE_NOWAIT | FMODE_BUF_RASYNC | FMODE_BUF_WASYNC;
+ file->f_mode |= FMODE_NOWAIT | FMODE_BUF_RASYNC | FMODE_BUF_WASYNC |
+ FMODE_ODIRECT_PARALLEL;
return generic_file_open(inode, file);
}
diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
index c1769a2c5d70..8541b9e53c2d 100644
--- a/include/linux/fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -166,6 +166,9 @@ typedef int (dio_iodone_t)(struct kiocb *iocb, loff_t offset,
/* File supports DIRECT IO */
#define FMODE_CAN_ODIRECT ((__force fmode_t)0x400000)
+/* File supports parallel O_DIRECT writes */
+#define FMODE_ODIRECT_PARALLEL ((__force fmode_t)0x800000)
+
/* File was opened by fanotify and shouldn't generate fanotify events */
#define FMODE_NONOTIFY ((__force fmode_t)0x4000000)
diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
index e680685e8a00..1409f6f69b13 100644
--- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
+++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
@@ -424,7 +424,12 @@ static void io_prep_async_work(struct io_kiocb *req)
req->flags |= io_file_get_flags(req->file) << REQ_F_SUPPORT_NOWAIT_BIT;
if (req->flags & REQ_F_ISREG) {
- if (def->hash_reg_file || (ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_IOPOLL))
+ bool should_hash = def->hash_reg_file;
+
+ if (should_hash && (req->file->f_flags & O_DIRECT) &&
+ (req->file->f_mode & FMODE_ODIRECT_PARALLEL))
+ should_hash = false;
+ if (should_hash || (ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_IOPOLL))
io_wq_hash_work(&req->work, file_inode(req->file));
} else if (!req->file || !S_ISBLK(file_inode(req->file)->i_mode)) {
if (def->unbound_nonreg_file)
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-26 0:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-19 21:36 Phoronix pts fio io_uring test regression report on upstream v6.1 and v5.15 Saeed Mirzamohammadi
2023-01-20 4:12 ` Jens Axboe
2023-01-26 0:22 ` Saeed Mirzamohammadi [this message]
2023-01-26 0:28 ` Jens Axboe
[not found] ` <[email protected]>
2023-01-26 18:35 ` Jens Axboe
2023-02-14 18:58 ` Saeed Mirzamohammadi
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=DM5PR10MB14190335EEB0AEF2B48DF6BAF1CE9@DM5PR10MB1419.namprd10.prod.outlook.com \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[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