linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND] [PATCH] readahead:add blk_run_backing

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]

Message-ID: <4A5CD3EB.50402@vlnb.net>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:52:27 +0400
From:	Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
CC:	Ronald Moesbergen <intercommit@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Alan.Brunelle@...com" <Alan.Brunelle@...com>,
	"hifumi.hisashi@....ntt.co.jp" <hifumi.hisashi@....ntt.co.jp>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"jens.axboe@...cle.com" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	"randy.dunlap@...cle.com" <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND] [PATCH] readahead:add blk_run_backing_dev


Wu Fengguang, on 07/13/2009 04:36 PM wrote:
>> Test done with XFS on both the target and the initiator. This confirms
>> your findings, using files instead of block devices is faster, but
>> only when using the io_context patch.
> 
> It shows that the one really matters is the io_context patch,
> even when context readahead is running. I guess what happened
> in the tests are:
> - without readahead (or readahead algorithm failed to do proper
>   sequential readaheads), the SCST processes will be submitting
>   small but close to each other IOs.  CFQ relies on the io_context
>   patch to prevent unnecessary idling.
> - with proper readahead, the SCST processes will also be submitting
>   close readahead IOs. For example, one file's 100-102MB pages is
>   readahead by process A, while its 102-104MB pages may be
>   readahead by process B. In this case CFQ will also idle waiting
>   for process A to submit the next IO, but in fact that IO is being
>   submitted by process B. So the io_context patch is still necessary
>   even when context readahead is working fine. I guess context
>   readahead do have the added value of possibly enlarging the IO size
>   (however this benchmark seems to not very sensitive to IO size).

Looks like the truth. Although with 2MB RA I expect CFQ to do idling >10 
times less, which should bring bigger improvement than few %%.

For how long CFQ idles? For HZ/125, i.e. 8 ms with HZ 250?

> Thanks,
> Fengguang

--
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/