[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1210514567.7827.62.camel@localhost>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 16:02:47 +0200
From: Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>
To: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Matthew <jackdachef@...il.com>
Subject: Re: performance "regression" in cfq compared to anticipatory,
deadline and noop
On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 14:14 +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> I've been experiencing this for a while also; an almost 50% regression
> is seen for single-process reads (ie sync) if slice_idle is 1ms or
> more (eg default of 8) [1], which seems phenomenal.
>
> Jens, is this the expected price to pay for optimal busy-spindle
> scheduling, a design issue, bug or am I missing something totally?
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>
> --- [1]
>
> # cat /sys/block/sda/queue/iosched/slice_idle
> 8
> # echo 1 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
> # dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=64k count=5000
> 5000+0 records in
> 5000+0 records out
> 327680000 bytes (328 MB) copied, 4.92922 s, 66.5 MB/s
>
> # echo 0 >/sys/block/sda/queue/iosched/slice_idle
> # echo 1 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
> # dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=64k count=5000
> 5000+0 records in
> 5000+0 records out
> 327680000 bytes (328 MB) copied, 2.74098 s, 120 MB/s
>
> # hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
>
> /dev/sda:
> Timing cached reads: 15464 MB in 2.00 seconds = 7741.05 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 342 MB in 3.01 seconds = 113.70 MB/sec
>
> [120MB/s is known platter-rate for this disc, so expected]
This appears to be what i get aswell..
root@...dstation # dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=64k count=5000
5000+0 records in
5000+0 records out
327680000 bytes (328 MB) copied, 5.48209 s, 59.8 MB/s
root@...dstation # echo 0 >/sys/block/sda/queue/iosched/slice_idle
root@...dstation # echo 1 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
root@...dstation # dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=64k count=5000
5000+0 records in
5000+0 records out
327680000 bytes (328 MB) copied, 2.93932 s, 111 MB/s
root@...dstation # hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
Timing cached reads: 7264 MB in 2.00 seconds = 3633.82 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 322 MB in 3.01 seconds = 107.00 MB/se
root@...dstation # echo 0 >/sys/block/sda/queue/iosched/slice_idle
root@...dstation # echo 1 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
root@...dstation # hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
Timing cached reads: 15268 MB in 2.00 seconds = 7643.54 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 328 MB in 3.01 seconds = 108.85 MB/sec
To be sure, i did it all again:
noop:
root@...dstation # echo 1 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
root@...dstation # dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=64k count=5000
5000+0 records in
5000+0 records out
327680000 bytes (328 MB) copied, 2.85503 s, 115 MB/s
root@...dstation # echo 1 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
root@...dstation # hdparm -tT /dev/sda
Timing cached reads: 14076 MB in 2.00 seconds = 7045.78 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 328 MB in 3.01 seconds = 109.12 MB/sec
anticipatory:
root@...dstation # echo 1 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
root@...dstation # dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=64k count=5000
5000+0 records in
5000+0 records out
327680000 bytes (328 MB) copied, 2.96948 s, 110 MB/s
root@...dstation # echo 1 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
root@...dstation # hdparm -tT /dev/sda
Timing cached reads: 13424 MB in 2.00 seconds = 6719.29 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 328 MB in 3.01 seconds = 109.13 MB/sec
cfq:
root@...dstation # echo 1 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
root@...dstation # dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=64k count=5000
5000+0 records in
5000+0 records out
327680000 bytes (328 MB) copied, 5.25252 s, 62.4 MB/s
root@...dstation # echo 1 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
root@...dstation # hdparm -tT /dev/sda
Timing cached reads: 13434 MB in 2.00 seconds = 6723.59 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 188 MB in 3.00 seconds = 62.57 MB/sec
Thisd would appear to be quite a considerable performance difference.
--
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