From: "David Wang" <00107082@163.com>
To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PERFORMANCE]fs: sendfile suffer performance degradation when buffer size have performance impact on underling IO
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2023 08:19:34 +0800 (CST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <28de01eb.208.18b4f9a0051.Coremail.00107082@163.com> (raw)
Hi,
I was trying to confirm the performance improvement via replacing read/write sequences with sendfile,
But I got quite a surprising result:
$ gcc -DUSE_SENDFILE cp.cpp
$ time ./a.out
real 0m56.121s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m4.844s
$ gcc cp.cpp
$ time ./a.out
real 0m27.363s
user 0m0.014s
sys 0m4.443s
The result show that, in my test scenario, the read/write sequences only use half of the time by sendfile.
My guess is that sendfile using a default pipe with buffer size 1<<16 (16 pages), which is not tuned for the underling IO,
hence a read/write sequences with buffer size 1<<17 is much faster than sendfile.
But the problem with sendfile is that there is no parameter to tune the buffer size from userspace...Any chance to fix this?
The test code is as following:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <sys/sendfile.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
char buf[1<<17]; // much better than 1<<16
int main() {
int i, fin, fout, n, m;
for (i=0; i<128; i++) {
// dd if=/dev/urandom of=./bigfile bs=131072 count=256
fin = open("./bigfile", O_RDONLY);
fout = open("./target", O_WRONLY | O_CREAT | O_DSYNC, S_IWUSR);
#ifndef USE_SENDFILE
while(1) {
n = read(fin, buf, sizeof(buf));
if (n==0) break;
m = write(fout, buf, n);
if (n != m) {
printf("fail to write, expect %d, actual %d\n", n, m);
perror(":");
return 1;
}
}
#else
off_t offset = 0;
struct stat st;
if (fstat(fin, &st) != 0) {
perror("fail to fstat\n");
return 1;
}
sendfile(fout, fin, &offset, st.st_size);
#endif
close(fin);
close(fout);
}
return 0;
}
FYI
David
next reply other threads:[~2023-10-21 0:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-21 0:19 David Wang [this message]
2023-10-22 22:53 ` Dave Chinner
2023-10-23 2:16 ` David Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=28de01eb.208.18b4f9a0051.Coremail.00107082@163.com \
--to=00107082@163.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®