[LU-12429] Single client buffered SSF write is slower than O_DIRECT

• Type: Bug
• Resolution: Unresolved
• Priority: Minor
• Affects Version/s: Lustre 2.13.0
• Severity: 3
• Assignee: Dongyang Li
• Reporter: Shuichi Ihara

Description

Single client's SSF doesn't scale by nubmer of process

# mpirun --allow-run-as-root -np X /work/tools/bin/ior -w -t 16m -b $((32/X))g -e -o file

NP     Write(MB/s)
  1     1594
  2     2525
  4     1892
  8     2032
 16     1812

A framegraph output at ior with NP=16 pointed out huge amount cost of spin_lock in add_to_page_cache_lru() and set_page_dirty(). At the resutls, Buffered SSF write on single client is slower than SSF with O_DIRECT. Here is my quick test resutls of single client SSF with/without O_DIRECT.

# mpirun -np 16 --allow-run-as-root /work/tools/bin/ior -w -t 16m -b 4g -e -o /scratch0/stripe/file 
Max Write: 1806.31 MiB/sec (1894.06 MB/sec)

# mpirun -np 16 --allow-run-as-root /work/tools/bin/ior -w -t 16m -b 4g -e -o /scratch0/stripe/file -B
Max Write: 5547.13 MiB/sec (5816.58 MB/sec)

Issue Links

• is related to: LU-247 Lustre client slow performance on BG/P IONs: unaligned DIRECT_IO
• is related to: LU-9920 Use pagevec for marking pages dirty

Comments

[Patrick Farrell (Inactive)]

I'm glad the patch improves things by 25%.  I'm pretty sure a new flame graph would basically show more time shifting to the contention on page allocation rather than page dirtying, but still those two hot spots.  It would be interesting to see, though.

Backing up:
Packed node direct i/o with reasonable sizes is always going to be better than buffered i/o.  We're not going to be able to fix that unless we were to convert direct to buffered in that scenario.

I also don't have any other good ideas for improvements - That contention we're facing is in the page cache itself, and Lustre isn't contributing to it.  Unless we want to do something radical like try to convert from buffered to direct when we run in to trouble, there will always be a gap.  (I don't like that idea of switching when the node is busy for a variety of reasons, FYI)

So I think we have to decide what the goal is for this ticket, as the implied goal of making them the same is, unfortunately, not realistic.

[Patrick Farrell (Inactive)]

That patch probably doesn't work with newer kernels - The mapping->tree_lock has been renamed.  I need to fix that, and will do shortly...  But you shouldn't expect much benefit, there have not been many changes in that area.  Just some reshuffling.

[Shuichi Ihara]

https://review.whamcloud.com/35206 improved SSF write by 25%, but still big gap against non-buffered IO.

Max Write: 2278.23 MiB/sec (2388.90 MB/sec)

Will check with newer linux kernel to compare.

[Patrick Farrell (Inactive)]

By the way, the contention here is two sided - It's adding pages to the mapping tree/lru, and it's marking them dirty.  (For some reason, removing them from the radix tree doesn't show up in here.  Possibly because it's already optimized with pagevecs or possibly because the test didn't run long enough?)

Anyway, naturally we would like to optimize the adding side as well.  Unfortunately, the way Linux does writing makes that quite hard.  Adding a page to the cache happens in ll_write_begin, which is called on each page as part of generic_file_buffered_write in the kernel.  It is required that after that call the page be inserted in to the radix tree for the file being written.

This means that there's not really any way to batch this at this step.

If we wanted, we could potentially try adding the requisite pages in batch before we got there - I would think in vvp_io_write_start - but that would still require open-coding batch functionality for adding pages to the cache.

Specifically, we'd have to open code:

__add_to_page_cache_locked
add_to_page_cache_lru
grab_cache_page_nowait 

This would let us just find already added pages in ll_write_begin, which requires no locking and is quite fast.

Which is a fair bit of kernel internal functionality.  Yuck.  It's something you'd want to upstream first, ideally...  (As is LU-9920 to be honest...)

[Patrick Farrell (Inactive)]

Please see
https://review.whamcloud.com/35206

For rebased copy.  Rebase was trivial (one line of comment was the only diff), but had to push to a new Gerrit because the old patch was abandoned.

Let's see how much benefit this gets you and we can consider reviving it.

FWIW, full node shared file direct i/o is probably always going to be faster than buffered...

[Patrick Farrell (Inactive)]

Ihara,

So we abandoned this patch because it's not useful for FPP loads, but given where you're reporting contention, it should be worth a try for SSF loads - which was the original goal.

https://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/28711/

The lock you're contending on here is the mapping->tree_lock, which is exactly what this patch helps address contention on.

Back in the past, I reported a 25% improvement with 8 writers in the SSF case.  You would probably see as much or more with more writers.

I'll see if I can rebase it right now...

Note that we rejected it because it requires re-implementing a certain amount of kernel functionality in a way that is not very pleasing...  But if there's a big benefit, it's not necessarily off the table.