mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥

  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®