From c01c02cd0e656e7f569560ce38ddad96ff9bbb43 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Schwinge Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:12:26 +0100 Subject: open_issues/performance/io_system/read-ahead: Some more IRC. --- open_issues/performance/io_system/read-ahead.mdwn | 230 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 230 insertions(+) (limited to 'open_issues/performance/io_system') diff --git a/open_issues/performance/io_system/read-ahead.mdwn b/open_issues/performance/io_system/read-ahead.mdwn index c3a0c1bb..241cda41 100644 --- a/open_issues/performance/io_system/read-ahead.mdwn +++ b/open_issues/performance/io_system/read-ahead.mdwn @@ -26,6 +26,8 @@ IRC, #hurd, freenode, 2011-02-13: portability it's not in posix indeed +--- + IRC, #hurd, freenode, 2011-02-14: youpi: I've investigated prefetching (readahead) techniques. One @@ -47,4 +49,232 @@ IRC, #hurd, freenode, 2011-02-14: oh, madvise() stuff i could help him with that +--- + [[Etenil]] is now working in this area. + +--- + +IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-02-15 + + oh, I'm looking into prefetching/readahead to improve I/O + performance + etenil: ok + etenil: that's actually a VM improvement, like samuel told you + yes + a true I/O improvement would be I/O scheduling + and how to implement it in a hurdish way + (or if it makes sense to have it in the kernel) + that's what I've been wondering too lately + concerning the VM, you should look at madvise() + my understanding is that Mach considers devices without really + knowing what they are + that's roughly the interface used both at the syscall() and the + kernel levels in BSD, which made it in many other unix systems + whereas I/O optimisations are often hard disk drives specific + that's true for almost any kernel + the device knowledge is at the driver level + yes + (here, I separate kernels from their drivers ofc) + but Mach also contains some drivers, so I'm going through the code + to find the apropriate place for these improvements + you shouldn't tough the drivers at all + touch + true, but I need to understand how it works before fiddling around + hm + not at all + the VM improvement is about pagein clustering + you don't need to know how pages are fetched + well, not at the device level + you need to know about the protocol between the kernel and + external pagers + ok + you could also implement pageout clustering + if I understand you well, you say that what I'd need to do is a + queuing system for the paging in the VM? + no + i'm saying that, when a page fault occurs, the kernel should + (depending on what was configured through madvise()) transfer pages in + multiple blocks rather than one at a time + communication with external pagers is already async, made through + regular ports + which already implement message queuing + you would just need to make the mapped regions larger + and maybe change the interface so that this size is passed + mmh + (also don't forget that page clustering can include pages *before* + the page which caused the fault, so you may have to pass the start of + that region too) + I'm not sure I understand the page fault thing + is it like a segmentation error? + I can't find a clear definition in Mach's manual + ah + it's a fundamental operating system concept + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_fault + ah ok + I understand now + so what's currently happening is that when a page fault occurs, + Mach is transfering pages one at a time and wastes time + sometimes, transferring just one page is what you want + it depends on the application, which is why there is madvise() + our rootfs, on the other hand, would benefit much from such an + improvement + in UVM, this optimization is account for around 10% global + performance improvement + accounted* + not bad + well, with an improved page cache, I'm sure I/O would matter less + on systems with more RAM + (and another improvement would make mach support more RAM in the + first place !) + an I/O scheduler outside the kernel would be a very good project + IMO + in e.g. libstore/storeio + yes + but as i stated in my thesis, a resource scheduler should be as + close to its resource as it can + and since mach can host several operating systems, I/O schedulers + should reside near device drivers + and since current drivers are in the kernel, it makes sens to have + it in the kernel too + so there must be some discussion about this + doesn't this mean that we'll have to get some optimizations in + Mach and have the same outside of Mach for translators that access the + hardware directly? + etenil: why ? + well as you said Mach contains some drivers, but in principle, it + shouldn't, translators should do disk access etc, yes? + etenil: ok + etenil: so ? + well, let's say if one were to introduce SATA support in Hurd, + nothing would stop him/her to do so with a translator rather than in Mach + you should avoid the term translator here + it's really hurd specific + let's just say a user space task would be responsible for that + job, maybe multiple instances of it, yes + ok, so in this case, let's say we have some I/O optimization + techniques like readahead and I/O scheduling within Mach, would these + also apply to the user-space task, or would they need to be + reimplemented? + if you have user space drivers, there is no point having I/O + scheduling in the kernel + but we also have drivers within the kernel + what you call readahead, and I call pagein/out clustering, is + really tied to the VM, so it must be in Mach in any case + well + you either have one or the other + currently we have them in the kernel + if we switch to DDE, we should have all of them outside + that's why such things must be discussed + ok so if I follow you, then future I/O device drivers will need to + be implemented for Mach + currently, yes + but preferrably, someone should continue the work that has been + done on DDe so that drivers are outside the kernel + so for the time being, I will try and improve I/O in Mach, and if + drivers ever get out, then some of the I/O optimizations will need to be + moved out of Mach + let me remind you one of the things i said + i said I/O scheduling should be close to their resource, because + we can host several operating systems + now, the Hurd is the only system running on top of Mach + so we could just have I/O scheduling outside too + then you should consider neighbor hurds + which can use different partitions, but on the same device + currently, partitions are managed in the kernel, so file systems + (and storeio) can't make good scheduling decisions if it remains that way + but that can change too + a single storeio representing a whole disk could be shared by + several hurd instances, just as if it were a high level driver + then you could implement I/O scheduling in storeio, which would be + an improvement for the current implementation, and reusable for future + work + yes, that was my first instinct + and you would be mostly free of the kernel internals that make it + a nightmare + but youpi said that it would be better to modify Mach instead + he mentioned the page clustering thing + not I/O scheduling + theseare really two different things + ok + you *can't* implement page clustering outside Mach because Mach + implements virtual memory + both policies and mechanisms + well, I'd rather think of one thing at a time if that's alright + so what I'm busy with right now is setting up clustered page-in + which need to be done within Mach + keep clustered page-outs in mind too + although there are more constraints on those + yes + I've looked up madvise(). There's a lot of documentation about it + in Linux but I couldn't find references to it in Mach (nor Hurd), does it + exist? + well, if it did, you wouldn't be caring about clustered page + transfers, would you ? + be careful about linux specific stuff + I suppose not + you should implement at least posix options, and if there are + more, consider the bsd variants + (the Mach VM is the ancestor of all modern BSD VMs) + madvise() seems to be posix + there are system specific extensions + be careful + CONFORMING TO POSIX.1b. POSIX.1-2001 describes posix_madvise(3) + with constants POSIX_MADV_NORMAL, etc., with a behav‐ ior close to that + described here. There is a similar posix_fadvise(2) for file access. + MADV_REMOVE, MADV_DONTFORK, MADV_DOFORK, MADV_HWPOISON, + MADV_MERGEABLE, and MADV_UNMERGEABLE are Linux- specific. + I was about to post these + ok, so basically madvise() allows tasks etc. to specify a usage + type for a chunk of memory, then I could apply the relevant I/O + optimization based on this + that's it + cool, then I don't need to worry about knowing what the I/O is + operating on, I just need to apply the optimizations as advised + that's convenient + ok I'll start working on this tonight + making a basic readahead shouldn't be too hard + readahead is a misleading name + is pagein better? + applies to too many things, doesn't include the case where + previous elements could be prefetched + clustered page transfers is what i would use + page prefetching maybe + ok + you should stick to something that's already used in the + literature since you're not inventing something new + yes I've read a paper about prefetching + ok + thanks for your help braunr + sure + you're welcome + braunr: madvise() is really the least important part of the + picture... + very few applications actually use it. but pretty much all + applications will profit from clustered paging + I would consider madvise() an optional goody, not an integral part + of the implementation + etenil: you can find some stuff about KAM's work on + http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/user/kam.html + not much specific though + thanks + I don't remember exactly, but I guess there is also some + information on the mailing list. check the archives for last summer + look for Karim Allah Ahmed + antrik: I disagree, madvise gives me a good starting point, even + if eventually the optimisations should run even without it + the code he wrote should be available from Google's summer of code + page somewhere... + antrik: right, i was mentioning madvise() because the kernel (VM) + interface is pretty similar to the syscall + but even a default policy would be nice + etenil: I fear that many bits were discussed only on IRC... so + you'd better look through the IRC logs from last April onwards... + ok + + at the beginning I thought I could put that into libstore + which would have been fine + + BTW, I remembered now that KAM's GSoC application should have a + pretty good description of the necessary changes... unfortunately, these + are not publicly visible IIRC :-( -- cgit v1.2.3