linux-kernel - Re: Performance regression in IO scheduler still there

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: <20091116165804.GA19230@duck.suse.cz>
Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:58:04 +0100
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, mszeredi@...e.de
Subject: Re: Performance regression in IO scheduler still there

On Mon 16-11-09 11:47:44, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 12-11-09 15:44:02, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:
> > 
> > > On Wed 11-11-09 12:43:30, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > >> Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:
> > >> 
> > >> >   Sadly, I don't see the improvement you can see :(. The numbers are the
> > >> > same regardless low_latency set to 0:
> > >> > 2.6.32-rc5 low_latency = 0:
> > >> > 37.39 36.43 36.51 -> 36.776667 0.434920
> > >> >   But my testing environment is a plain SATA drive so that probably
> > >> > explains the difference...
> > >> 
> > >> I just retested (10 runs for each kernel) on a SATA disk with no NCQ
> > >> support and I could not see a difference.  I'll try to dig up a disk
> > >> that support NCQ.  Is that what you're using for testing?
> > >   I don't think I am. How do I find out?
> > 
> > Good question.  ;-)  I grep for NCQ in dmesg output and make sure it's
> > greater than 0/32.  There may be a better way, though.
>   Message in the logs:
> ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
> ata1.00: ATA-8: Hitachi HTS722016K9SA00, DCDOC54P, max UDMA/133
> ata1.00: 312581808 sectors, multi 16: LBA48 NCQ (depth 0/32)
> ata1.00: configured for UDMA/133
>   So apparently no NCQ. /sys/block/sda/device/queue_depth shows 1 but I
> guess that's just it's way of saying "no NCQ".
> 
>   What I thought might make a difference why I'm seeing the drop and you
> are not is size of RAM or number of CPUs vs the tiobench file size or
> number of threads. I'm running on a machine with 2 GB of RAM, using 4 GB
> filesize. The machine has 2 cores and I'm using 16 tiobench threads. I'm
> now rerunning tests with various numbers of threads to see how big
> difference it makes.
  OK, here are the numbers (3 runs of each test):
2.6.29:
Threads	Avg		Stddev
1	42.043333	0.860439
2	40.836667	0.322938
4	41.810000	0.114310
8	40.190000	0.419603
16	39.950000	0.403072
32	39.373333	0.766913

2.6.32-rc7:
Threads	Avg		Stddev
1	41.580000	0.403072
2	39.163333	0.374641
4	39.483333	0.400111
8	38.560000	0.106145
16	37.966667	0.098770
32	36.476667	0.032998

  So apparently the difference between 2.6.29 and 2.6.32-rc7 increases as
the number of threads rises. With how many threads have you been running
when using SATA drive and what machine is it?
  I'm now running a test with larger file size (8GB instead of 4) to see
what difference it makes.

									Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/