News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Designing the Scylla Userspace Disk I/O Scheduler (Part 1) by hendzen on Saturday April 16, 2016 @11:04AM (#11510829)
Avi has an earlier post [0] where he shows that (recent) XFS is the only filesystem that actually executes io_submit asynchronously.

http://www.scylladb.com/2016/02/09/qualifying-filesystems/

Re:Designing the Scylla Userspace Disk I/O Scheduler (Part 1) by glommer on Saturday April 16, 2016 @12:37PM (#11511210)
Actually, what Avi has demonstrated in this article is that XFS is the only filesystem that executes it mostly asynchronously.

Before we got started with the implementation of the I/O Scheduler (which we eventually wanted anyway for prioritization), I saw await time as reported by iostat as bad as 7s (truth be told, those weren't the best disks in the planet).

That was basically XFS sleeping during io_submit due to the problem I have briefly mentioned in this article, with the allocation groups.

If you limit the amount of requests the filesystem is consuming, then it is gone to the point that we started focused our attention in other areas. But it still has a couple of places in which it will resort to synchronous behavior.

No Linux filesystem can execute io_submit completely asynchronous.

Re:Designing the Scylla Userspace Disk I/O Scheduler (Part 1) by mtanski on Saturday April 16, 2016 @01:32PM (#11511457)
I'm going to guess that your next step to chase further speeds is going direct to nvme just levering the block layer (per core multiq) skipping the filesystem entirely.
Re:Designing the Scylla Userspace Disk I/O Scheduler (Part 1) by seastarer on Saturday April 16, 2016 @02:39PM (#11511725)
You're going to be right on that guess. It will take some time though.