mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>
To: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>,
	<axboe@kernel.dk>, <bvanassche@acm.org>,
	<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, <john.garry@huawei.com>,
	<ming.lei@redhat.com>, <qiulaibin@huawei.com>
Cc: <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<yi.zhang@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next RFC v3 0/8] improve tag allocation under heavy load
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 15:28:03 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <35f18afa-0db1-b423-5824-4d5631b0422f@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2e7969ea-68d0-964a-808e-ee8943de70e3@opensource.wdc.com>

在 2022/04/25 15:06, Damien Le Moal 写道:

>>> By the way, did you check that doing something like:
>>>
>>> echo 2048 > /sys/block/sdX/queue/nr_requests
>>>
>>> improves performance for your high number of jobs test case ?
>>
>> Yes, performance will not degrade when numjobs is not greater than 256
>> in this case.
> 
> That is my thinking as well. I am asking if did check that (did you run it ?).

Hi,

I'm sure I ran it with 256 jobs before.

However, I didn't run it with 512 jobs. And following is the result I
just tested:

ratio of sequential io: 49.1%

Read|Write seek 

cnt 99338, zero cnt 48753 

     >=(KB) .. <(KB)     : count       ratio |distribution 
              |
          0 .. 1         : 48753       49.1% 
|########################################|
          1 .. 2         : 0            0.0% | 
              |
          2 .. 4         : 0            0.0% | 
              |
          4 .. 8         : 0            0.0% | 
              |
          8 .. 16        : 0            0.0% | 
              |
         16 .. 32        : 0            0.0% | 
              |
         32 .. 64        : 0            0.0% | 
              |
         64 .. 128       : 4975         5.0% |##### 
              |
        128 .. 256       : 4439         4.5% |#### 
              |
        256 .. 512       : 2615         2.6% |### 
              |
        512 .. 1024      : 967          1.0% |# 
              |
       1024 .. 2048      : 213          0.2% |# 
              |
       2048 .. 4096      : 375          0.4% |# 
              |
       4096 .. 8192      : 723          0.7% |# 
              |
       8192 .. 16384     : 1436         1.4% |## 
              |
      16384 .. 32768     : 2626         2.6% |### 
              |
      32768 .. 65536     : 4197         4.2% |#### 
              |
      65536 .. 131072    : 6431         6.5% |###### 
              |
     131072 .. 262144    : 7590         7.6% |####### 
              |
     262144 .. 524288    : 6433         6.5% |###### 
              |
     524288 .. 1048576   : 4583         4.6% |#### 
              |
    1048576 .. 2097152   : 2237         2.3% |## 
              |
    2097152 .. 4194304   : 489          0.5% |# 
              |
    4194304 .. 8388608   : 83           0.1% |# 
              |
    8388608 .. 16777216  : 36           0.0% |# 
              |
   16777216 .. 33554432  : 0            0.0% | 
              |
   33554432 .. 67108864  : 0            0.0% | 
              |
   67108864 .. 134217728 : 137          0.1% |# 
              |

  reply	other threads:[~2022-04-25  7:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-15 10:10 Yu Kuai
2022-04-15 10:10 ` [PATCH -next RFC v3 1/8] sbitmap: record the number of waiters for each waitqueue Yu Kuai
2022-04-15 10:10 ` [PATCH -next RFC v3 2/8] blk-mq: call 'bt_wait_ptr()' later in blk_mq_get_tag() Yu Kuai
2022-04-15 10:10 ` [PATCH -next RFC v3 3/8] sbitmap: make sure waitqueues are balanced Yu Kuai
2022-04-15 10:10 ` [PATCH -next RFC v3 4/8] blk-mq: don't preempt tag under heavy load Yu Kuai
2022-04-15 10:10 ` [PATCH -next RFC v3 5/8] sbitmap: force tag preemption if free tags are sufficient Yu Kuai
2022-04-15 10:10 ` [PATCH -next RFC v3 6/8] blk-mq: force tag preemption for split bios Yu Kuai
2022-04-15 10:10 ` [PATCH -next RFC v3 7/8] blk-mq: record how many tags are needed for splited bio Yu Kuai
2022-04-15 10:10 ` [PATCH -next RFC v3 8/8] sbitmap: wake up the number of threads based on required tags Yu Kuai
2022-04-24  2:43 ` [PATCH -next RFC v3 0/8] improve tag allocation under heavy load yukuai (C)
2022-04-25  3:24   ` Damien Le Moal
2022-04-25  6:14     ` yukuai (C)
2022-04-25  6:23       ` Damien Le Moal
2022-04-25  6:47         ` yukuai (C)
2022-04-25  6:50           ` Damien Le Moal
2022-04-25  7:05             ` yukuai (C)
2022-04-25  7:06               ` Damien Le Moal
2022-04-25  7:28                 ` yukuai (C) [this message]
2022-04-25 11:20                   ` Damien Le Moal
2022-04-25 13:42                     ` yukuai (C)
2022-04-25  3:09 ` Bart Van Assche
2022-04-25  3:27   ` yukuai (C)

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=35f18afa-0db1-b423-5824-4d5631b0422f@huawei.com \
    --to=yukuai3@huawei.com \
    --cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com \
    --cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=qiulaibin@huawei.com \
    --cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
    /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®