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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 09:31:02 +0800 From: Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com> To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> CC: Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: fio posixaio performance problem On 2011-8-5 8:56, Gui Jianfeng wrote: > On 2011-8-4 22:12, Vivek Goyal wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 03:44:55PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote: >> >> [..] >>>> oh, not related per your blktrace. so we have two problems here: >>>> 1. fio doesn't dispatch request in 8ms. >>>> 2. no close request preempt. >>> >>> Yes, these're actual factors why performance is so bad. >>> >>>> both looks quite wield. can you post a longer blktrace output, like >>>> for one second? the piece is too short. >>> >>> Attached. >> >> Gui, few observations from you log file. >> >> - preemption happened 1631 times and did not happen 527 times and idle >> timer fired. >> >> - In some cases where preemption did not happen, next request seems to >> be too far away (more than CFQQ_CLOSE_THR=8K sectors). >> >> - I noticed couple of cases where next request was with-in 8K distanace >> still preemption did not happen. This makes me curious. Can you please > > Yes, I also noticed such case... > >> put some trace messages in should_preempt() and rq_close() call and see >> what's going on? > > Will dig into it. > >> >> For example, following trace shows that next request is 5176 sector behind >> the previous one completed. I am wondering why did preemption not take >> place. >> >> 8,0 0 606 2.751892651 16420 D W 512146800 + 8 [fio] >> 8,0 2 579 2.752127950 0 C W 512146800 + 8 [0] >> >> 8,0 0 609 2.752235995 16421 Q WS 512141624 + 8 [fio] >> 8,0 0 610 2.752238859 16421 G WS 512141624 + 8 [fio] >> 8,0 0 612 2.752243818 16421 I W 512141624 + 8 [fio] >> 8,0 0 0 2.752246262 0 m N cfq16421S / insert_request >> 8,0 0 0 2.752247729 0 m N cfq16421S / add_to_rr >> 8,0 2 0 2.759710295 0 m N cfq idle timer fired >> >> Putting some extra trace messages in CFQ might help here. BTW, which >> kernel version are you using? 3.0? > > Yes, latest upstream kernel. Vivek, BTW, do you have any idea why fio doesn't issue any io in 8ms? Thanks, Gui > > Thanks, > Gui > >> >> Thanks >> Vivek >> -- >> 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/ >> >> > > > -- > 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/ > > -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists