lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: AW: Slow I/O on USB media after commit f664a3cc17b7d0a2bc3b3ab96181e1029b0ec0e6
From
Date
Il giorno mar, 24/12/2019 alle 09.27 +0800, Ming Lei ha scritto:
> Hi Ted,
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 02:53:01PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 07:45:57PM +0100, Andrea Vai wrote:
> > > basically, it's:
> > >
> > > mount UUID=$uuid /mnt/pendrive
> > > SECONDS=0
> > > cp $testfile /mnt/pendrive
> > > umount /mnt/pendrive
> > > tempo=$SECONDS
> > >
> > > and it copies one file only. Anyway, you can find the whole
> script
> > > attached.
> >
> > OK, so whether we are doing the writeback at the end of cp, or
> when
> > you do the umount, it's probably not going to make any
> difference. We
> > can get rid of the stack trace in question by changing the script
> to
> > be basically:
> >
> > mount UUID=$uuid /mnt/pendrive
> > SECONDS=0
> > rm -f /mnt/pendrive/$testfile
> > cp $testfile /mnt/pendrive
> > umount /mnt/pendrive
> > tempo=$SECONDS
> >
> > I predict if you do that, you'll see that all of the time is spent
> in
> > the umount, when we are trying to write back the file.
> >
> > I really don't think then this is a file system problem at
> all. It's
> > just that USB I/O is slow, for whatever reason. We'll see a stack
> > trace in the writeback code waiting for the I/O to be completed,
> but
> > that doesn't mean that the root cause is in the writeback code or
> in
> > the file system which is triggering the writeback.
>
> Wrt. the slow write on this usb storage, it is caused by two
> writeback
> path, one is the writeback wq, another is from ext4_release_file()
> which
> is triggered from exit_to_usermode_loop().
>
> When the two write path is run concurrently, the sequential write
> order
> is broken, then write performance drops much on this particular usb
> storage.
>
> The ext4_release_file() should be run from read() or write() syscall
> if
> Fedora 30's 'cp' is implemented correctly. IMO, it isn't expected
> behavior
> for ext4_release_file() to be run thousands of times when just
> running 'cp' once, see comment of ext4_release_file():
>
> /*
> * Called when an inode is released. Note that this is
> different
> * from ext4_file_open: open gets called at every open, but
> release
> * gets called only when /all/ the files are closed.
> */
> static int ext4_release_file(struct inode *inode, struct file
> *filp)
>
> >
> > I suspect the next step is use a blktrace, to see what kind of I/O
> is
> > being sent to the USB drive, and how long it takes for the I/O to
> > complete. You might also try to capture the output of "iostat -x
> 1"
> > while the script is running, and see what the difference might be
> > between a kernel version that has the problem and one that
> doesn't,
> > and see if that gives us a clue.
>
> That isn't necessary, given we have concluded that the bad write
> performance is caused by broken write order.
>
> >
> > > > And then send me
> > > btw, please tell me if "me" means only you or I cc: all the
> > > recipients, as usual
> >
> > Well, I don't think we know what the root cause is. Ming is
> focusing
> > on that stack trace, but I think it's a red herring..... And if
> it's
> > not a file system problem, then other people will be best suited
> to
> > debug the issue.
>
> So far, the reason points to the extra writeback path from
> exit_to_usermode_loop().
> If it is not from close() syscall, the issue should be related with
> file reference
> count. If it is from close() syscall, the issue might be in 'cp''s
> implementation.
>
> Andrea, please collect the following log or the strace log requested
> by Ted, then
> we can confirm if the extra writeback is from close() or
> read/write() syscall:
>
> # pass PID of 'cp' to this script
> #!/bin/sh
> PID=$1
> /usr/share/bcc/tools/trace -P $PID -t -C \
> 't:block:block_rq_insert "%s %d %d", args->rwbs, args->sector,
> args->nr_sector' \
> 't:syscalls:sys_exit_close ' \
> 't:syscalls:sys_exit_read ' \
> 't:syscalls:sys_exit_write '

Sorry if I am a bit confused, should I run it on ext4 or xfs, or
doesn't matter? What if I get it on a "fast" run? Should I throw it
away and try again until I get a slow one, or it doesn't matter?

Thanks,
Andrea

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-24 07:50    [W:0.080 / U:1.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site