mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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®