[LTP] [PATCH v4] syscalls/readahead02: set readahead to min(bdi limit, 2M)
Jan Stancek
jstancek@redhat.com
Fri Mar 8 15:56:32 CET 2019
----- Original Message -----
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:19 PM Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Using system-wide "Cached" size is not accurate. The test is sporadically
> > failing with warning on ppc64le 4.18 and 5.0 kernels.
> >
> > Problem is that test over-estimates max readahead size, which then
> > leads to fewer readhead calls and kernel can silently trims length
> > in each of them:
> > ...
> > readahead02.c:244: INFO: Test #2: POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED on file
> > readahead02.c:134: INFO: creating test file of size: 67108864
> > readahead02.c:263: INFO: read_testfile(0)
> > readahead02.c:274: INFO: read_testfile(1)
> > readahead02.c:189: INFO: max ra estimate: 12320768
> > readahead02.c:198: INFO: readahead calls made: 6
> > readahead02.c:204: PASS: offset is still at 0 as expected
> > readahead02.c:308: INFO: read_testfile(0) took: 492486 usec
> > readahead02.c:309: INFO: read_testfile(1) took: 430627 usec
> > readahead02.c:311: INFO: read_testfile(0) read: 67108864 bytes
> > readahead02.c:313: INFO: read_testfile(1) read: 59244544 bytes
> > readahead02.c:316: PASS: readahead saved some I/O
> > readahead02.c:324: INFO: cache can hold at least: 264192 kB
> > readahead02.c:325: INFO: read_testfile(0) used cache: 124992 kB
> > readahead02.c:326: INFO: read_testfile(1) used cache: 12032 kB
> > readahead02.c:338: WARN: using less cache than expected
> >
> > Try raising bdi readahead limit as much as we can. We write and read back
> > "read_ahead_kb" sysfs value, starting with filesize. If that fails, we try
> > again with lower value.
> >
> > readahead_length used in the test is then set to MIN(bdi limit, 2M),
> > so we respect also kernels prior to commit 600e19afc5f8 ("mm: use
> > only per-device readahead limit").
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> I just wonder, since we readahead every 2MB, is there a point to
> setting bdi limit to 64MB and try readahead 64MB on first time?
> I believe the answer is yes, just wanted to hear your thoughts about this.
I think yes - we don't know for sure if that length is supported,
but trying it doesn't seem to hurt anything.
Thanks for review,
Jan
>
> Thanks,
> Amir.
>
>
> > ---
> > testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead02.c | 70
> > +++++++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead02.c
> > b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead02.c
> > index 293c839e169e..39ddbd5835a6 100644
> > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead02.c
> > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead02.c
> > @@ -49,7 +49,9 @@ static int ovl_mounted;
> > #define OVL_UPPER MNTPOINT"/upper"
> > #define OVL_WORK MNTPOINT"/work"
> > #define OVL_MNT MNTPOINT"/ovl"
> > -#define MIN_SANE_READAHEAD (4u * 1024u)
> > +static int readahead_length = 4096;
> > +static char sys_bdi_ra_path[PATH_MAX];
> > +static int orig_bdi_limit;
> >
> > static const char mntpoint[] = MNTPOINT;
> >
> > @@ -165,13 +167,11 @@ static int read_testfile(struct tcase *tc, int
> > do_readahead,
> > size_t i = 0;
> > long read_bytes_start;
> > unsigned char *p, tmp;
> > - unsigned long cached_start, max_ra_estimate = 0;
> > off_t offset = 0;
> >
> > fd = SAFE_OPEN(fname, O_RDONLY);
> >
> > if (do_readahead) {
> > - cached_start = get_cached_size();
> > do {
> > TEST(tc->readahead(fd, offset, fsize - offset));
> > if (TST_RET != 0) {
> > @@ -179,21 +179,8 @@ static int read_testfile(struct tcase *tc, int
> > do_readahead,
> > return TST_ERR;
> > }
> >
> > - /* estimate max readahead size based on first call
> > */
> > - if (!max_ra_estimate) {
> > - *cached = get_cached_size();
> > - if (*cached > cached_start) {
> > - max_ra_estimate = (1024 *
> > - (*cached - cached_start));
> > - tst_res(TINFO, "max ra estimate:
> > %lu",
> > - max_ra_estimate);
> > - }
> > - max_ra_estimate = MAX(max_ra_estimate,
> > - MIN_SANE_READAHEAD);
> > - }
> > -
> > i++;
> > - offset += max_ra_estimate;
> > + offset += readahead_length;
> > } while ((size_t)offset < fsize);
> > tst_res(TINFO, "readahead calls made: %zu", i);
> > *cached = get_cached_size();
> > @@ -364,6 +351,49 @@ static void setup_overlay(void)
> > ovl_mounted = 1;
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * We try raising bdi readahead limit as much as we can. We write
> > + * and read back "read_ahead_kb" sysfs value, starting with filesize.
> > + * If that fails, we try again with lower value.
> > + * readahead_length used in the test is then set to MIN(bdi limit, 2M),
> > + * to respect kernels prior to commit 600e19afc5f8a6c.
> > + */
> > +static void setup_readahead_length(void)
> > +{
> > + struct stat sbuf;
> > + char tmp[PATH_MAX], *backing_dev;
> > + int ra_new_limit, ra_limit;
> > +
> > + /* Find out backing device name */
> > + SAFE_LSTAT(tst_device->dev, &sbuf);
> > + if (S_ISLNK(sbuf.st_mode))
> > + SAFE_READLINK(tst_device->dev, tmp, PATH_MAX);
> > + else
> > + strcpy(tmp, tst_device->dev);
> > +
> > + backing_dev = basename(tmp);
> > + sprintf(sys_bdi_ra_path, "/sys/class/block/%s/bdi/read_ahead_kb",
> > + backing_dev);
> > + if (access(sys_bdi_ra_path, F_OK))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + SAFE_FILE_SCANF(sys_bdi_ra_path, "%d", &orig_bdi_limit);
> > +
> > + /* raise bdi limit as much as kernel allows */
> > + ra_new_limit = testfile_size / 1024;
> > + while (ra_new_limit > pagesize / 1024) {
> > + FILE_PRINTF(sys_bdi_ra_path, "%d", ra_new_limit);
> > + SAFE_FILE_SCANF(sys_bdi_ra_path, "%d", &ra_limit);
> > +
> > + if (ra_limit == ra_new_limit) {
> > + readahead_length = MIN(ra_new_limit * 1024,
> > + 2 * 1024 * 1024);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + ra_new_limit = ra_new_limit / 2;
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > static void setup(void)
> > {
> > if (opt_fsizestr)
> > @@ -380,6 +410,9 @@ static void setup(void)
> >
> > pagesize = getpagesize();
> >
> > + setup_readahead_length();
> > + tst_res(TINFO, "readahead length: %d", readahead_length);
> > +
> > setup_overlay();
> > }
> >
> > @@ -387,6 +420,9 @@ static void cleanup(void)
> > {
> > if (ovl_mounted)
> > SAFE_UMOUNT(OVL_MNT);
> > +
> > + if (orig_bdi_limit)
> > + SAFE_FILE_PRINTF(sys_bdi_ra_path, "%d", orig_bdi_limit);
> > }
> >
> > static struct tst_test test = {
> > --
> > 1.8.3.1
> >
>
More information about the ltp
mailing list