linux-kernel - Re: A quick fio test (was Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:43:15 +0530
From:	Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@....com.au>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: A quick fio test (was Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3)

On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 02:57:36PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
> Some more results, using a larger number of processes and io depths. A
> repeat of the tests from friday, with added depth 20000 for syslet and
> libaio:
> 
> Engine          Depth   Processes       Bw (MiB/sec)
> ----------------------------------------------------
> libaio            1         1            602
> syslet            1         1            759
> sync              1         1            776
> libaio           32         1            832
> syslet           32         1            898
> libaio        20000         1            581
> syslet        20000         1            609
> 
> syslet still on top. Measuring O_DIRECT reads (of 4kb size) on ramfs
> with 100 processes each with a depth of 200, reading a per-process
> private file of 10mb (need to fit in my ram...) 10 times each. IOW,
> doing 10,000MiB of IO in total:

But, why ramfs ? Don't we want to exercise the case where O_DIRECT actually
blocks ? Or am I missing something here ?

Regards
Suparna

> 
> Engine          Depth   Processes       Bw (MiB/sec)
> ----------------------------------------------------
> libaio           200       100            1488
> syslet           200       100            1714
> 
> Results are stable to within approx +/- 10MiB/sec. The syslet case
> completes a whole second faster than libaio (~6 vs ~7 seconds). Testing
> was done with fio HEAD eb7c8ae27bc301b77490b3586dd5ccab7c95880a, and it
> uses the v4 patch series.
> 
> Engine          Depth   Processes       Bw (MiB/sec)
> ----------------------------------------------------
> libaio            200       100            1488
> syslet            200       100            1714
> sync              200       100            1843
> 
> -- 
> Jens Axboe

-- 
Suparna Bhattacharya (suparna@...ibm.com)
Linux Technology Center
IBM Software Lab, India

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/