From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Fri Sep 7 16:07:00 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34624FFEA26 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 16:07:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from markjdb@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pl1-x641.google.com (mail-pl1-x641.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::641]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4A128F3C3; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 16:06:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from markjdb@gmail.com) Received: by mail-pl1-x641.google.com with SMTP id t19-v6so6793300ply.13; Fri, 07 Sep 2018 09:06:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=ujuLF+il8wMf0gBstv5eTMcqjp31MHkLR1nOUSELa6A=; b=QT6Wirg1sgu7QW50sx/QdO3vK6tBTffvG7RDtstZWv21hOY7Q94UcB2+jd6wNVyOcQ 8jFziFQeMQw0aD+lwTOJlwValJlvPcWLOT8iGVodhGpeIOPT+uwDPnJn4GNGTnKiUWdg UuaT2CpW0NYoqWCtuGWkpU/3TuoratLTv+WBOI8+Z6xkJ0oi7/80QQEgIvFTSzpJzUVj cgEWhrnUGCXKAyqJeJfqDcNL8JOKBa80VpHOidT5IUeOZm8TFxARJ61htZaLUzm6fUUn wiV671bK/gHAmXDnBO0kM2xfaQ/xbF7DzloVP1siy6Mgsei1TEYUcCqzwxXFQOMkkCc+ MXdg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ujuLF+il8wMf0gBstv5eTMcqjp31MHkLR1nOUSELa6A=; b=GOi2mob1RrhBcS6+8dKLz6IqiKW3hWLMe76x/jbJmSa5wL0aXk+kNp2aNZ6IdY+nss I9LzLZopl7iUqNbd5hOByCsbE/Xe5MBOGxwAThbAiXDXK7ZrKl64jQrtUTqPktGmC01/ T/1rvgPZm0ll3xmsZ0tT0N1kM7BNuzhZ06X7juKrqW33e1LMc+kEqpyMMvpAczqYjrpb GUKEGa/UitgRl09fsnbsklFHzqX9sjZos6ithN0+cp3JfjNFT5UEE3rRqNo/0XxuGIww vn6VZhqk1ih/0P6lXWH1KpXd3nlwpFEv5m4oeVz8fQLJ1V6J2jWpk5qCG/GYKACrJ14j PB/w== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51DIcDCw1hDZ3z/Vbch/5FjknYzX9AnPhvWadGbDAPhYV1UsFAmz yoodDI1+bp03bSsyZ4LFs+AumSzjhnE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdarS4dkfj1ZL0VNdObObJrMKZgq2ic5+3bUjcHUyPLIxSZXA95OJxlP7vUUni9whjPcED5ZUA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7c8c:: with SMTP id y12-v6mr8779221pll.283.1536336418497; Fri, 07 Sep 2018 09:06:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from raichu (toroon0560w-lp130-09-70-52-224-239.dsl.bell.ca. [70.52.224.239]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x24-v6sm10648422pfh.67.2018.09.07.09.06.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Sep 2018 09:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Mark Johnston Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 12:06:54 -0400 From: Mark Johnston To: Jakob Alvermark Cc: Subbsd , allanjude@freebsd.org, freebsd-current Current Subject: Re: ZFS perfomance regression in FreeBSD 12 APLHA3->ALPHA4 Message-ID: <20180907160654.GD63224@raichu> References: <20180906002825.GB77324@raichu> <26c0f87e-2dd5-b088-8edb-0790b6b01ef0@alvermark.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <26c0f87e-2dd5-b088-8edb-0790b6b01ef0@alvermark.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2018 16:07:00 -0000 On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 03:40:52PM +0200, Jakob Alvermark wrote: > On 9/6/18 2:28 AM, Mark Johnston wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:15:03PM +0300, Subbsd wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 5:58 PM Allan Jude wrote: > >>> On 2018-09-05 10:04, Subbsd wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I'm seeing a huge loss in performance ZFS after upgrading FreeBSD 12 > >>>> to latest revision (r338466 the moment) and related to ARC. > >>>> > >>>> I can not say which revision was before except that the newver.sh > >>>> pointed to ALPHA3. > >>>> > >>>> Problems are observed if you try to limit ARC. In my case: > >>>> > >>>> vfs.zfs.arc_max="128M" > >>>> > >>>> I know that this is very small. However, for two years with this there > >>>> were no problems. > >>>> > >>>> When i send SIGINFO to process which is currently working with ZFS, i > >>>> see "arc_reclaim_waiters_cv": > >>>> > >>>> e.g when i type: > >>>> > >>>> /bin/csh > >>>> > >>>> I have time (~5 seconds) to press several times 'ctrl+t' before csh is executed: > >>>> > >>>> load: 0.70 cmd: csh 5935 [arc_reclaim_waiters_cv] 1.41r 0.00u 0.00s 0% 3512k > >>>> load: 0.70 cmd: csh 5935 [zio->io_cv] 1.69r 0.00u 0.00s 0% 3512k > >>>> load: 0.70 cmd: csh 5935 [arc_reclaim_waiters_cv] 1.98r 0.00u 0.01s 0% 3512k > >>>> load: 0.73 cmd: csh 5935 [arc_reclaim_waiters_cv] 2.19r 0.00u 0.01s 0% 4156k > >>>> > >>>> same story with find or any other commans: > >>>> > >>>> load: 0.34 cmd: find 5993 [zio->io_cv] 0.99r 0.00u 0.00s 0% 2676k > >>>> load: 0.34 cmd: find 5993 [arc_reclaim_waiters_cv] 1.13r 0.00u 0.00s 0% 2676k > >>>> load: 0.34 cmd: find 5993 [arc_reclaim_waiters_cv] 1.25r 0.00u 0.00s 0% 2680k > >>>> load: 0.34 cmd: find 5993 [arc_reclaim_waiters_cv] 1.38r 0.00u 0.00s 0% 2684k > >>>> load: 0.34 cmd: find 5993 [arc_reclaim_waiters_cv] 1.51r 0.00u 0.00s 0% 2704k > >>>> load: 0.34 cmd: find 5993 [arc_reclaim_waiters_cv] 1.64r 0.00u 0.00s 0% 2716k > >>>> load: 0.34 cmd: find 5993 [arc_reclaim_waiters_cv] 1.78r 0.00u 0.00s 0% 2760k > >>>> > >>>> this problem goes away after increasing vfs.zfs.arc_max > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > >>>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > >>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >>>> > >>> Previously, ZFS was not actually able to evict enough dnodes to keep > >>> your arc_max under 128MB, it would have been much higher based on the > >>> number of open files you had. A recent improvement from upstream ZFS > >>> (r337653 and r337660) was pulled in that fixed this, so setting an > >>> arc_max of 128MB is much more effective now, and that is causing the > >>> side effect of "actually doing what you asked it to do", in this case, > >>> what you are asking is a bit silly. If you have a working set that is > >>> greater than 128MB, and you ask ZFS to use less than that, it'll have to > >>> constantly try to reclaim memory to keep under that very low bar. > >>> > >> Thanks for comments. Mark was right when he pointed to r338416 ( > >> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/arc.c?r1=338416&r2=338415&pathrev=338416 > >> ). Commenting aggsum_value returns normal speed regardless of the rest > >> of the new code from upstream. > >> I would like to repeat that the speed with these two lines is not just > >> slow, but _INCREDIBLY_ slow! Probably, this should be written in the > >> relevant documentation for FreeBSD 12+ > > Hi, > > I am experiencing the same slowness when there is a bit of load on the > system (buildworld for example) which I haven't seen before. Is it a regression following a recent kernel update? > I have vfs.zfs.arc_max=2G. > > Top is reporting > > ARC: 607M Total, 140M MFU, 245M MRU, 1060K Anon, 4592K Header, 217M Other >      105M Compressed, 281M Uncompressed, 2.67:1 Ratio > > Should I test the patch? I would be interested in the results, assuming it is indeed a regression.