From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>, "Zhang\,
Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: fio mmap randread 64k more than 40% regression with 2.6.33-rc1
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:00:30 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <x49636wvptt.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1263950975.7958.9.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> (Shaohua Li's message of "Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:29:35 +0800")
Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> writes:
> On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 13:40 -0800, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 09:10:33PM +0100, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Zhang, Yanmin
>> > <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 17:27 +0100, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
>> > >> Hi Yanmin
>> > >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > Hi Yanmin,
>> > >> >> When low_latency=1, we get the biggest number with kernel 2.6.32.
>> > >> >> Comparing with low_latency=0's result, the prior one is about 4% better.
>> > >> > Ok, so 2.6.33 + corrado (with low_latency =0) is comparable with
>> > >> > fastest 2.6.32, so we can consider the first part of the problem
>> > >> > solved.
>> > >> >
>> > >> I think we can return now to your full script with queue merging.
>> > >> I'm wondering if (in arm_slice_timer):
>> > >> - if (cfqq->dispatched)
>> > >> + if (cfqq->dispatched || (cfqq->new_cfqq && rq_in_driver(cfqd)))
>> > >> return;
>> > >> gives the same improvement you were experiencing just reverting to rq_in_driver.
>> > > I did a quick testing against 2.6.33-rc1. With the new method, fio mmap randread 46k
>> > > has about 20% improvement. With just checking rq_in_driver(cfqd), it has
>> > > about 33% improvement.
>> > >
>> > Jeff, do you have an idea why in arm_slice_timer, checking
>> > rq_in_driver instead of cfqq->dispatched gives so much improvement in
>> > presence of queue merging, while it doesn't have noticeable effect
>> > when there are no merges?
>>
>> Performance improvement because of replacing cfqq->dispatched with
>> rq_in_driver() is really strange. This will mean we will do even lesser
>> idling on the cfqq. That means faster cfqq switching and that should mean more
>> seeks (for this test case) and reduce throughput. This is just opposite to your approach of treating a random read mmap queue as sync where we will idle on
>> the queue.
> I used to look at the issue, but not fully understand it. Some
> interesting finding:
> the cfqq->dispatched cause cfq_select_queue frequently switch queues.
> it appears frequent switch can make we could quickly switch to
> sequential requests in the workload. without the cfqq->dispatched, we
> dispatch queue1 request, M requests from other queues, queue1 request.
> with it, we dispatch queue1 request, N requests from other queues,
> queue1 request. It appears M < N from blktrace, which cause we have less
> seeky. I don't see any other obvious difference from blktrace in the two
> cases.
I thought there was merging and/or unmerging activity. You don't
mention that here.
I'll see if I can reproduce it.
Cheers,
Jeff
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-20 14:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-31 9:16 Zhang, Yanmin
2009-12-31 10:34 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-01-01 10:12 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2010-01-01 16:32 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-01-02 12:33 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2010-01-02 18:52 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-01-04 8:18 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2010-01-04 18:28 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-01-16 16:27 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-01-18 3:06 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2010-01-19 20:10 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-01-19 20:42 ` Jeff Moyer
2010-01-19 21:40 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-01-19 21:58 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-01-20 19:18 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-01-20 1:29 ` Shaohua Li
2010-01-20 14:00 ` Jeff Moyer [this message]
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=x49636wvptt.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com \
--to=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=czoccolo@gmail.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=yanmin_zhang@linux.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®