linux-kernel - Re: Higher than expected disk write(2) latency

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <486BC6F7.2090709@fastmq.com>
Date:	Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:20:39 +0200
From:	Martin Sustrik <sustrik@...tmq.com>
To:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
CC:	Roger Heflin <rogerheflin@...il.com>,
	Martin Lucina <mato@...elna.sk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Higher than expected disk write(2) latency


> I thought you were doing I/O to the underlying block device.  If so,
> there's no need to open with O_SYNC.  You do, however, need to open the
> device with O_DIRECT and align your buffers (and buffer lengths)
> properly.

Yes, we are using O_DIRECT + aligning the buffers. However, usign O_SYNC 
vs. O_ASYNC seems to matter (different latency). Maybe this is because 
we are using librt?

> Which AIO interface are you using, libaio or librt?  How many I/Os are
> you queueing to the device?  You may want to take a look at aio-stress.c
> as a way to test your device (this uses libaio, the in-kernel AIO
> interface).

We are using librt, queueing 10240 writes, 512 bytes each.

We'll retry with libaio. Thanks for advice.

Martin
--
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/