From: Michael Marod <michael@michaelmarod.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: NVME performance regression in Linux 5.x due to lack of block level IO queueing
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 23:22:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4034AD9F-2A6A-4AE6-B5FC-58FC2BC238F5@michaelmarod.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YkUvgu6VxNORv8M6@infradead.org>
Good call -- Turns out that that cache issue is resolved in 5.17. I tried a number of kernels and narrowed it down to a problem that started after 4.9 and before 4.15, and ended some time after 5.13. Namely, 4.9 is good, 4.15 is bad, 5.13 is bad, and 5.17 is good. I did not bisect it all the way down to the specific versions where the behaviors changed.
Device r/s w/s rkB/s wkB/s rrqm/s wrqm/s %rrqm %wrqm r_await w_await aqu-sz rareq-sz wareq-sz svctm %util
nvme1n1 2758.00 2783.00 11032.00 11132.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.03 0.36 4.00 4.00 0.18 100.00
nvme0n1 2830.00 2875.00 11320.00 11500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.03 0.39 4.00 4.00 0.18 100.00
With regards to the performance between 4.4.0 and 5.17, for a single thread, 4.4.0 still had better performance over 5.17. However, the 5.17 kernel was significantly better at multiple threads. In fact, it is so much better I don't believe the results (10x improvement!). Is this to be expected that a single thread would be slower in 5.17, but recent improvements make it possible to run many of them in parallel more efficiently?
# /usr/local/bin/fio -name=randrw -filename=/opt/foo -direct=1 -iodepth=1 -thread -rw=randrw -ioengine=psync -bs=4k -size=10G -numjobs=16 -group_reporting=1 -runtime=120
// Ubuntu 16.04 / Linux 4.4.0:
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: bw=54.5MiB/s (57.1MB/s), 54.5MiB/s-54.5MiB/s (57.1MB/s-57.1MB/s), io=6537MiB (6854MB), run=120002-120002msec
WRITE: bw=54.5MiB/s (57.2MB/s), 54.5MiB/s-54.5MiB/s (57.2MB/s-57.2MB/s), io=6544MiB (6862MB), run=120002-120002msec
// Ubuntu 18.04 / Linux 5.4.0:
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: bw=23.5MiB/s (24.7MB/s), 23.5MiB/s-23.5MiB/s (24.7MB/s-24.7MB/s), io=2821MiB (2959MB), run=120002-120002msec
WRITE: bw=23.5MiB/s (24.6MB/s), 23.5MiB/s-23.5MiB/s (24.6MB/s-24.6MB/s), io=2819MiB (2955MB), run=120002-120002msec
// Ubuntu 18.04 / Linux 5.17:
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: bw=244MiB/s (255MB/s), 244MiB/s-244MiB/s (255MB/s-255MB/s), io=28.6GiB (30.7GB), run=120001-120001msec
WRITE: bw=244MiB/s (256MB/s), 244MiB/s-244MiB/s (256MB/s-256MB/s), io=28.6GiB (30.7GB), run=120001-120001msec
Thanks,
Michael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-31 23:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-30 14:32 Michael Marod
2022-03-30 14:50 ` Michael Marod
2022-03-31 0:11 ` Michael Marod
2022-03-31 4:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-03-31 23:22 ` Michael Marod [this message]
2022-04-01 2:27 ` Keith Busch
2022-04-01 2:59 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
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=4034AD9F-2A6A-4AE6-B5FC-58FC2BC238F5@michaelmarod.com \
--to=michael@michaelmarod.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-block@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®