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:	Tue, 27 Feb 2007 20:25:45 +0100
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Cc:	Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
	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>,
	"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 Tue, Feb 27 2007, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 07:45:41PM +0100, Jens Axboe (jens.axboe@...cle.com) wrote:
> > > Deadline shows this:
> > > 
> > > sync:
> > > READ: io=1,024MiB, aggrb=38,212KiB/s, minb=38,212KiB/s,
> > > maxb=38,212KiB/s, mint=28099msec, maxt=28099msec
> > > 
> > > libaio:
> > > READ: io=1,024MiB, aggrb=37,933KiB/s, minb=37,933KiB/s,
> > > maxb=37,933KiB/s, mint=28306msec, maxt=28306msec
> > > 
> > > syslet-rw:
> > > READ: io=1,024MiB, aggrb=34,759KiB/s, minb=34,759KiB/s,
> > > maxb=34,759KiB/s, mint=30891msec, maxt=30891msec
> > > 
> > > There were about 10k async schedulings.
> > 
> > I think the issue here is pretty simple - when fio gets a queue full
> > like condition (it reaches the depth you set, 32), it commits them and
> > starts queuing again. Since that'll likely block, it'll get issued by
> > another process. So you suddenly have a nice sequence of reads from one
> > process (pending, only one is actually committed since it's serialized),
> > and then a read further down the line that goes behind those you already
> > committed. Then result is seeky, where it should have been sequential.
> > 
> > Do you get expected results if you set iodepth_low=1? That'll make fio
> > drain the queue before building it up again, should get you a sequential
> > access pattern with syslets.
> 
> With such a change results should be better - not only because seek is
> removed with sequential read, but also number of working threads
> decreases with time - until queue is filled again.

Yep, although it probably doesn't matter for such a low bandwidth test
anyway.

> So, syslet-rw has increased to 37mb/sec out of 39/sync and 38/libaio,
> the latter two did not changed.

I wonder why all three aren't doing 39mb/sec flat here, it's a pretty
trivial case...

> With iodepth of 10k, I get the same performance for
> libaio and syslets - about 36mb/sec, it does not depend on iodepth_low
> being set to 1 or default (full).

Yep, the larger the iodepth, the less costly a seek on new queue buildup
gets. So that is as expected.

> So syslets have small problems with small number of iodepth - its
> performance is about 34mb/sec and then increases to 36 with iodepth
> grow. While libaio decreases from 38 down to 36 mb/sec.

Using your job file and fio HEAD (forces iodepth_low=1 for syslet if
iodepth_low isn't specified), I get:

Engine          Depth   Bw (kb/sec)
-----------------------------------
syslet              1      37163
syslet             32      37197
syslet          10000      36577
libaio              1      37144
libaio             32      37159
libaio          10000      36463
sync                1      37154

Results are highly stable. Note that this test case isn't totally fair,
since libaio isn't really async when you do buffered file IO.

-- 
Jens Axboe

-
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/