From: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, LKP ML <lkp@01.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [block] 34b48db66e0: +3291.6% iostat.sde.wrqm/s
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:02:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54C1494D.5050507@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <x49zj9a9073.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
On 01/22/2015 10:47 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> writes:
>
>> On 01/21/2015 06:21 PM, Huang Ying wrote:
>>> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>>>
>>> commit 34b48db66e08ca1c1bc07cf305d672ac940268dc ("block: remove artifical max_hw_sectors cap")
>>>
>>> testbox/testcase/testparams: lkp-ws02/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-btrfs-64G-1024f-seqrewr-sync
>>>
>>> c2661b806092d8ea 34b48db66e08ca1c1bc07cf305
>>> ---------------- --------------------------
>>> %stddev %change %stddev
>>> \ | \
>>> 47176 ± 2% -67.3% 15406 ± 4% softirqs.BLOCK
>>> 1110 ± 44% -51.0% 544 ± 35% sched_debug.cpu#8.curr->pid
>>> 22 ± 33% -48.9% 11 ± 43% sched_debug.cpu#1.cpu_load[0]
>>> 91 ± 43% +125.0% 204 ± 32% sched_debug.cfs_rq[4]:/.blocked_load_avg
>>> 17 ± 46% -65.2% 6 ± 31% sched_debug.cfs_rq[1]:/.runnable_load_avg
>>> 105 ± 43% +102.6% 213 ± 32% sched_debug.cfs_rq[4]:/.tg_load_contrib
>>> 163 ± 35% +62.6% 265 ± 27% sched_debug.cfs_rq[16]:/.blocked_load_avg
>>> 183 ± 29% +51.4% 277 ± 26% sched_debug.cfs_rq[16]:/.tg_load_contrib
>>> 1411 ± 31% -42.5% 812 ± 32% sched_debug.cpu#6.curr->pid
>>> 57565068 ± 15% +66.8% 96024066 ± 17% cpuidle.C1E-NHM.time
>>> 94625 ± 9% -32.5% 63893 ± 4% cpuidle.C3-NHM.usage
>>> 200 ± 14% -22.8% 155 ± 24% sched_debug.cfs_rq[8]:/.tg_load_contrib
>>> 244 ± 33% -39.0% 149 ± 11% sched_debug.cfs_rq[6]:/.blocked_load_avg
>>> 265 ± 31% -38.4% 163 ± 9% sched_debug.cfs_rq[6]:/.tg_load_contrib
>>> 4959 ± 9% -18.2% 4058 ± 1% slabinfo.kmalloc-128.active_objs
>>> 4987 ± 9% -18.6% 4058 ± 1% slabinfo.kmalloc-128.num_objs
>>> 19 ± 8% -19.7% 15 ± 14% sched_debug.cpu#0.cpu_load[1]
>>> 662307 ± 7% -12.6% 579108 ± 3% cpuidle.C6-NHM.usage
>>> 3028 ± 7% -12.3% 2656 ± 1% slabinfo.ext4_extent_status.num_objs
>>> 3028 ± 7% -12.3% 2656 ± 1% slabinfo.ext4_extent_status.active_objs
>>> 4.87 ± 0% +3291.6% 165.07 ± 0% iostat.sde.wrqm/s
>>> 1006 ± 0% +120.3% 2216 ± 0% iostat.sde.avgrq-sz
>>
>> So these two above tells us that we are doing way more write merges
>> per second, and that the average request size has roughly doubled from
>> 1006 to 2216 - both are excellent news.
>>
>>> 466 ± 0% +115.9% 1007 ± 0% iostat.sde.await
>>> 466 ± 0% +115.9% 1007 ± 0% iostat.sde.w_await
>>
>> Service time roughly doubled, must be mostly stream time.
>>
>>> 301 ± 0% -52.7% 142 ± 0% iostat.sde.w/s
>>
>> About half the number of writes completed, but from the stats above,
>> those writes are more than double. 1006 * 301 < 2216 * 142, so again,
>> this looks good.
>>
>>> 2230 ± 2% -8.2% 2048 ± 2% vmstat.system.in
>>
>> And a nice reduction in irq rate, also nice. Way less software irqs
>> from the first few lines, also a win.
>
> Agreed on all above, but are the actual benchmark numbers included
> somewhere in all this mess? I'd like to see if the benchmark numbers
> improved first, before digging into the guts of which functions are
> called more or which stats changed.
I deleted the original email, but the latter tables had drive throughput
rates and it looked higher for the ones I checked on the newer kernel.
Which the above math would indicate as well, multiplying reqs-per-sec
and req-size.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-22 19:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-22 1:21 Huang Ying
2015-01-22 5:37 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-22 17:47 ` Jeff Moyer
2015-01-22 19:02 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2015-01-22 20:49 ` Jeff Moyer
2015-01-22 20:58 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-22 21:08 ` Jeff Moyer
2015-01-22 21:12 ` 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=54C1494D.5050507@fb.com \
--to=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@01.org \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.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
Powered by JetHome