From: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Cc: Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfq-iosched: reduce write depth only if sync was delayed
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:03:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4e5e476b0912181303v3efbd846le61a0deacffe6a49@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <x49iqc42t8r.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8, Size: 8537 bytes --]
Thanks Jeff.Your tests show that with the patch, low_latency doesn't penalizewriteback any more on fast hardware, so the goal of the patch isfulfilled. Lowering slice_async doesn't change the picture (I wasexpecting an improvement in seq write bandwidth).I'm still puzzled of why with 2.6.29 your SAN could achieve 300 MB/ssequential writes, and it can't achieve it any more.Can you try lowering slice_idle, trying e.g. 2ms?
ThanksCorrado
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote:> Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com> writes:>>> Hi Jeff,>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote:>>> Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com> writes:>>>>>>> The numbers look good. Now, there is no penalty in having low_latency>>>> set for sequential writes, and just a small penalty for random ones.>>>> The fact that random reads are faster with low_latency set is interesting.>>>> Is the test is running with your patched tiobench (so that the number>>>> of random operations is comparable with sequential ones)?>>>>>> No, I forgot all about that.  The number of random operations defaults>>> to 4000, which is pretty low.  I'll re-run the tests with a number>>> comparable to the sequential runs.  Sorry about that.>>>>> N.P.>> if you have time, can you also re-run the test changing:>> iosched/fifo_expire_async to 8 ?>> I hope that reducing the expire_async, will make cfq quicker at switching>> between the different threads, allowing more parallelism for seq>> writers on your hw.>> If this is the case, I think I can try to estimate the>> fifo_expire_async in the autotuning patch.>> Sorry this took so long.  I've been rather busy of late.>> Cheers,> Jeff>> low_latency=1, fifo_expire_async=8>> Unit information> ================> File size = megabytes> Blk Size  = bytes> Rate    = megabytes per second> CPU%    = percentage of CPU used during the test> Latency  = milliseconds> Lat%    = percent of requests that took longer than X seconds> CPU Eff  = Rate divided by CPU% - throughput per cpu load>> Sequential Reads>                File  Blk  Num          Avg    Maximum    Lat%   Lat%   CPU> Identifier           Size  Size  Thr  Rate  (CPU%)  Latency   Latency    >2s    >10s   Eff> ---------------------------- ------ ----- ---  ------ ------ --------- -----------  -------- -------- -----> 2.6.32             8192  65536  8  88.39 89.74%   16.388   2032.62  0.00000  0.00000   98> 2.6.32             8192  65536  16  90.77 185.3%   32.213   2175.99  0.00000  0.00000   49>> Random Reads>                File  Blk  Num          Avg    Maximum    Lat%   Lat%   CPU> Identifier           Size  Size  Thr  Rate  (CPU%)  Latency   Latency    >2s    >10s   Eff> ---------------------------- ------ ----- ---  ------ ------ --------- -----------  -------- -------- -----> 2.6.32             8192  65536  8  19.62 25.74%   71.827   3397.26  0.00000  0.00000   76> 2.6.32             8192  65536  16  23.82 55.01%  103.361   4075.53  0.00000  0.00000   43>> Sequential Writes>                File  Blk  Num          Avg    Maximum    Lat%   Lat%   CPU> Identifier           Size  Size  Thr  Rate  (CPU%)  Latency   Latency    >2s    >10s   Eff> ---------------------------- ------ ----- ---  ------ ------ --------- -----------  -------- -------- -----> 2.6.32             8192  65536  8  108.28 1007.%   12.984   5643.55  0.00076  0.00000   11> 2.6.32             8192  65536  16  112.40 2014.%   25.430   8592.98  0.00839  0.00000   6>> Random Writes>                File  Blk  Num          Avg    Maximum    Lat%   Lat%   CPU> Identifier           Size  Size  Thr  Rate  (CPU%)  Latency   Latency    >2s    >10s   Eff> ---------------------------- ------ ----- ---  ------ ------ --------- -----------  -------- -------- -----> 2.6.32             8192  65536  8  63.94 337.7%   22.885   6047.22  0.00076  0.00000   19> 2.6.32             8192  65536  16  61.94 662.5%   46.997   12759.69  0.15411  0.00000   9>>> low_latency=0, fifo_expire_async=8>> Unit information> ================> File size = megabytes> Blk Size  = bytes> Rate    = megabytes per second> CPU%    = percentage of CPU used during the test> Latency  = milliseconds> Lat%    = percent of requests that took longer than X seconds> CPU Eff  = Rate divided by CPU% - throughput per cpu load>> Sequential Reads>                File  Blk  Num          Avg    Maximum    Lat%   Lat%   CPU> Identifier           Size  Size  Thr  Rate  (CPU%)  Latency   Latency    >2s    >10s   Eff> ---------------------------- ------ ----- ---  ------ ------ --------- -----------  -------- -------- -----> 2.6.32             8192  65536  8  89.13 88.30%   15.872   3101.39  0.00000  0.00000  101> 2.6.32             8192  65536  16  86.78 161.7%   30.794   4909.02  0.00000  0.00000   54>> Random Reads>                File  Blk  Num          Avg    Maximum    Lat%   Lat%   CPU> Identifier           Size  Size  Thr  Rate  (CPU%)  Latency   Latency    >2s    >10s   Eff> ---------------------------- ------ ----- ---  ------ ------ --------- -----------  -------- -------- -----> 2.6.32             8192  65536  8  20.21 26.64%   69.863   4285.42  0.00000  0.00000   76> 2.6.32             8192  65536  16  20.10 52.75%  139.761   5986.94  0.00076  0.00000   38>> Sequential Writes>                File  Blk  Num          Avg    Maximum    Lat%   Lat%   CPU> Identifier           Size  Size  Thr  Rate  (CPU%)  Latency   Latency    >2s    >10s   Eff> ---------------------------- ------ ----- ---  ------ ------ --------- -----------  -------- -------- -----> 2.6.32             8192  65536  8  108.74 1020.%   13.070   5331.78  0.00076  0.00000   11> 2.6.32             8192  65536  16  112.18 2020.%   25.559   7903.16  0.00992  0.00000   6>> Random Writes>                File  Blk  Num          Avg    Maximum    Lat%   Lat%   CPU> Identifier           Size  Size  Thr  Rate  (CPU%)  Latency   Latency    >2s    >10s   Eff> ---------------------------- ------ ----- ---  ------ ------ --------- -----------  -------- -------- -----> 2.6.32             8192  65536  8  64.53 337.8%   22.671   5388.77  0.00000  0.00000   19> 2.6.32             8192  65536  16  61.75 668.9%   47.265   13271.37  0.12894  0.00000   9>
-- __________________________________________________________________________
dott. Corrado Zoccolo mailto:czoccolo@gmail.comPhD - Department of Computer Science - University of Pisa, Italy--------------------------------------------------------------------------The self-confidence of a warrior is not the self-confidence of the averageman. The average man seeks certainty in the eyes of the onlooker and callsthat self-confidence. The warrior seeks impeccability in his own eyes andcalls that humbleness. Tales of Power - C. Castanedaÿôèº{.nÇ+·®+%Ëÿ±éݶ\x17¥wÿº{.nÇ+·¥{±þG«éÿ{ayº\x1dÊÚë,j\a¢f£¢·hïêÿêçz_è®\x03(éÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?¨èÚ&£ø§~á¶iOæ¬z·vØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?I¥
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-18 21:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-04 12:35 Corrado Zoccolo
2009-12-05 11:13 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-12-06 10:45 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-12-06 10:49 ` Jens Axboe
2009-12-07 14:13 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-12-07 14:41 ` Jens Axboe
2009-12-07 16:45 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-12-07 17:04 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-12-07 17:27 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-12-07 18:03 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-12-08 0:07 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-12-08 20:43 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-12-09 18:09 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-12-11 17:15 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-12-11 17:50 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-12-18 15:32 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-12-18 21:03 ` Corrado Zoccolo [this message]
2009-12-08 18:00 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-12-08 20:46 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-12-09 18:16 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-12-09 19:05 ` Jens Axboe
2009-12-09 19:45 Corrado Zoccolo
2009-12-09 19:51 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-12-09 19:54 ` Jens Axboe
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=4e5e476b0912181303v3efbd846le61a0deacffe6a49@mail.gmail.com \
--to=czoccolo@gmail.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.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®