From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: jiangshanlai@gmail.com, peterz@infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
joshdon@google.com, brho@google.com, briannorris@chromium.org,
nhuck@google.com, agk@redhat.com, snitzer@kernel.org,
void@manifault.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v1 wq/for-6.5] workqueue: Improve unbound workqueue execution locality
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 13:03:04 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZGgAKK-c_DZpvNJB@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZGf5rfESYhKYzPSY@slm.duckdns.org>
Oh, a bit of addition.
Once below saturation, latency and bw are mostly the two sides of the same
coin but just to be sure, here are latency results. The single-threaded sync
IO is run with 1ms interval between IOs.
taskset 0x8 fio --filename=/dev/dm-0 --direct=1 --rw=randrw --bs=512 \
--ioengine=sync --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --numjobs=1 --time_based \
--group_reporting --name=iops-test-job --verify=sha512 --thinktime=1ms
SYSTEM
read: IOPS=480, BW=240KiB/s (246kB/s)(14.1MiB/60001msec)
clat (usec): min=8, max=401, avg=30.96, stdev= 9.60
lat (usec): min=8, max=401, avg=31.01, stdev= 9.60
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 11], 5.00th=[ 13], 10.00th=[ 25], 20.00th=[ 27],
| 30.00th=[ 28], 40.00th=[ 29], 50.00th=[ 29], 60.00th=[ 30],
| 70.00th=[ 32], 80.00th=[ 42], 90.00th=[ 44], 95.00th=[ 44],
| 99.00th=[ 46], 99.50th=[ 46], 99.90th=[ 56], 99.95th=[ 71],
| 99.99th=[ 253]
bw ( KiB/s): min= 214, max= 265, per=99.85%, avg=240.29, stdev=11.35, samples=119
iops : min= 428, max= 530, avg=480.59, stdev=22.70, samples=119
CPU_STRICT
read: IOPS=474, BW=237KiB/s (243kB/s)(385KiB/1624msec)
clat (usec): min=9, max=240, avg=28.00, stdev=11.20
lat (usec): min=9, max=240, avg=28.05, stdev=11.20
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 12], 5.00th=[ 26], 10.00th=[ 26], 20.00th=[ 26],
| 30.00th=[ 27], 40.00th=[ 28], 50.00th=[ 28], 60.00th=[ 28],
| 70.00th=[ 29], 80.00th=[ 30], 90.00th=[ 31], 95.00th=[ 31],
| 99.00th=[ 32], 99.50th=[ 50], 99.90th=[ 241], 99.95th=[ 241],
| 99.99th=[ 241]
CACHE
read: IOPS=479, BW=240KiB/s (245kB/s)(14.0MiB/60002msec)
clat (nsec): min=7874, max=75922, avg=13342.34, stdev=6906.53
lat (nsec): min=7904, max=75952, avg=13386.08, stdev=6906.60
clat percentiles (nsec):
| 1.00th=[ 8384], 5.00th=[ 8896], 10.00th=[ 9152], 20.00th=[ 9408],
| 30.00th=[ 9536], 40.00th=[ 9920], 50.00th=[10432], 60.00th=[10688],
| 70.00th=[11072], 80.00th=[13632], 90.00th=[27264], 95.00th=[28288],
| 99.00th=[30592], 99.50th=[30848], 99.90th=[41216], 99.95th=[56064],
| 99.99th=[74240]
bw ( KiB/s): min= 204, max= 269, per=99.69%, avg=239.67, stdev=11.02, samples=119
iops : min= 408, max= 538, avg=479.34, stdev=22.04, samples=119
It's a bit confusing because fio switched to printing nsecs for CACHE but
CPU_STRICT (per-cpu)'s average completion latency is, expectedly, better
than SYSTEM - 28ms vs. 31ms, but CACHE's is way better at 13.3ms.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-19 23:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 73+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-19 0:16 Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:16 ` [PATCH 01/24] workqueue: Drop the special locking rule for worker->flags and worker_pool->flags Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:16 ` [PATCH 02/24] workqueue: Cleanups around process_scheduled_works() Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:16 ` [PATCH 03/24] workqueue: Not all work insertion needs to wake up a worker Tejun Heo
2023-05-23 9:54 ` Lai Jiangshan
2023-05-23 21:37 ` Tejun Heo
2023-08-08 1:15 ` [PATCH v2 " Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:16 ` [PATCH 04/24] workqueue: Rename wq->cpu_pwqs to wq->cpu_pwq Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:16 ` [PATCH 05/24] workqueue: Relocate worker and work management functions Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:16 ` [PATCH 06/24] workqueue: Remove module param disable_numa and sysfs knobs pool_ids and numa Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:16 ` [PATCH 07/24] workqueue: Use a kthread_worker to release pool_workqueues Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:16 ` [PATCH 08/24] workqueue: Make per-cpu pool_workqueues allocated and released like unbound ones Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:16 ` [PATCH 09/24] workqueue: Make unbound workqueues to use per-cpu pool_workqueues Tejun Heo
2023-05-22 6:41 ` Leon Romanovsky
2023-05-22 12:27 ` Dennis Dalessandro
2023-05-19 0:16 ` [PATCH 10/24] workqueue: Rename workqueue_attrs->no_numa to ->ordered Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:16 ` [PATCH 11/24] workqueue: Rename NUMA related names to use pod instead Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:16 ` [PATCH 12/24] workqueue: Move wq_pod_init() below workqueue_init() Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:16 ` [PATCH 13/24] workqueue: Initialize unbound CPU pods later in the boot Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:16 ` [PATCH 14/24] workqueue: Generalize unbound CPU pods Tejun Heo
2023-05-30 8:06 ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-06-07 1:50 ` Tejun Heo
2023-05-30 21:18 ` Sandeep Dhavale
2023-05-31 12:14 ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-06-07 22:13 ` Tejun Heo
2023-06-08 3:01 ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-06-08 22:50 ` Tejun Heo
2023-06-09 3:43 ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-06-14 18:49 ` Sandeep Dhavale
2023-06-21 20:14 ` Tejun Heo
2023-06-19 4:30 ` Swapnil Sapkal
2023-06-21 20:38 ` Tejun Heo
2023-07-05 7:04 ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-07-05 18:39 ` Tejun Heo
2023-07-11 3:02 ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-07-31 23:52 ` Tejun Heo
2023-08-08 1:08 ` Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:17 ` [PATCH 15/24] workqueue: Add tools/workqueue/wq_dump.py which prints out workqueue configuration Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:17 ` [PATCH 16/24] workqueue: Modularize wq_pod_type initialization Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:17 ` [PATCH 17/24] workqueue: Add multiple affinity scopes and interface to select them Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:17 ` [PATCH 18/24] workqueue: Factor out work to worker assignment and collision handling Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:17 ` [PATCH 19/24] workqueue: Factor out need_more_worker() check and worker wake-up Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:17 ` [PATCH 20/24] workqueue: Add workqueue_attrs->__pod_cpumask Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:17 ` [PATCH 21/24] workqueue: Implement non-strict affinity scope for unbound workqueues Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:17 ` [PATCH 22/24] workqueue: Add "Affinity Scopes and Performance" section to documentation Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:17 ` [PATCH 23/24] workqueue: Add pool_workqueue->cpu Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:17 ` [PATCH 24/24] workqueue: Implement localize-to-issuing-CPU for unbound workqueues Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 0:41 ` [PATCHSET v1 wq/for-6.5] workqueue: Improve unbound workqueue execution locality Linus Torvalds
2023-05-19 22:35 ` Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 23:03 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2023-05-23 1:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-05-23 17:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-05-23 20:08 ` Rik van Riel
2023-05-23 21:36 ` Sandeep Dhavale
2023-05-23 11:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-05-23 16:12 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-05-24 7:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-05-24 13:15 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-06-05 4:46 ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2023-06-07 14:42 ` Libo Chen
2023-05-26 1:12 ` Tejun Heo
2023-05-30 11:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-06-12 23:56 ` Brian Norris
2023-06-13 2:48 ` Tejun Heo
2023-06-13 9:26 ` Pin-yen Lin
2023-06-21 19:16 ` Tejun Heo
2023-06-21 19:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-06-29 9:49 ` Pin-yen Lin
2023-07-03 21:47 ` Tejun Heo
2023-08-08 1:22 ` Tejun Heo
2023-08-08 2:58 ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-08-08 7:59 ` Tejun Heo
2023-08-18 4:05 ` K Prateek Nayak
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=ZGgAKK-c_DZpvNJB@slm.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=brho@google.com \
--cc=briannorris@chromium.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joshdon@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nhuck@google.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=snitzer@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=void@manifault.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®