| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20091130225640.GO11670@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:56:40 -0500 From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> To: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@...com> Cc: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com, nauman@...gle.com, dpshah@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com, ryov@...inux.co.jp, fernando@....ntt.co.jp, s-uchida@...jp.nec.com, taka@...inux.co.jp, guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com, jmoyer@...hat.com, righi.andrea@...il.com, m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com Subject: Re: Block IO Controller V4 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 05:00:33PM -0500, Alan D. Brunelle wrote: > FYI: Results today from my test suite - haven't had time to parse them > in any depth... Thanks Alan. I am trying to parse the results below. s0 and s8 still mean slice idle enabled disabled? Instead of that we can try group_isolation enabled or disabled for all the tests. > > ---- ---- - --------- --------- --------- > Mode RdWr N base i1,s8 i1,s0 > ---- ---- - --------- --------- --------- > rnd rd 2 43.3 50.6 43.3 > rnd rd 4 40.9 55.8 41.1 > rnd rd 8 36.7 61.6 36.9 I am assuming that base still means no io controller patches applied. Also assuming that base must have run with slice_idle=8. If yes, above is surprising. After applying the patches, performance of random reads have become much better with slice_idle=8. May be you ran the base with slice_idle=0 that's why results more or less match with ioc patches applied with slice_idle=0. > > rnd wr 2 69.2 68.1 69.4 > rnd wr 4 66.0 62.7 66.0 > rnd wr 8 60.5 47.8 61.3 If you ran base with slice_idle=0, then first and third columns match. Can't conclude much about i1,s8 case. I am curious though why performance dropped when number of writers reached 8. > > rnd rdwr 2 54.3 49.1 54.3 > rnd rdwr 4 50.3 41.7 50.4 > rnd rdwr 8 45.9 30.4 46.2 Same as random write. > > seq rd 2 613.7 606.0 602.8 > seq rd 4 617.3 606.7 606.1 > seq rd 8 618.3 602.9 605.0 > This is surprising again. if s0 means slice_idle=0, then in that case performance should have sucked with N=8 as we should have been seeking all over the place. > seq wr 2 670.3 725.9 703.9 > seq wr 4 680.0 722.0 627.0 > seq wr 8 685.3 710.4 631.3 > > seq rdwr 2 703.4 665.3 680.2 > seq rdwr 4 677.5 656.8 639.9 > seq rdwr 8 683.3 646.4 633.7 > > =============================================================== > > ----------- ---- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > Test Mode RdWr N test0 test1 test2 test3 test4 test5 test6 test7 > ----------- ---- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > base rnd rd 2 21.7 21.5 > base rnd rd 4 11.3 11.4 9.4 8.8 > base rnd rd 8 2.7 2.9 7.0 7.2 4.2 4.3 4.6 3.8 > > base rnd wr 2 34.2 34.9 > base rnd wr 4 18.2 18.3 15.3 14.2 > base rnd wr 8 3.9 3.8 16.8 17.3 4.7 4.6 5.1 4.3 > > base rnd rdwr 2 27.1 27.2 > base rnd rdwr 4 13.8 13.3 11.8 11.4 > base rnd rdwr 8 2.9 2.8 9.9 9.6 4.9 5.4 5.7 4.6 > > > base seq rd 2 306.9 306.8 > base seq rd 4 160.6 161.0 147.5 148.1 > base seq rd 8 78.3 78.9 76.7 77.6 76.1 75.8 77.8 77.1 > > base seq wr 2 335.2 335.1 > base seq wr 4 170.7 171.5 168.7 169.0 > base seq wr 8 87.7 88.3 85.4 85.0 81.9 84.2 85.6 87.2 > > base seq rdwr 2 350.6 352.8 > base seq rdwr 4 180.3 181.4 157.7 158.2 > base seq rdwr 8 85.8 86.2 87.2 86.8 82.6 81.5 85.3 88.0 > > ----------- ---- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > Test Mode RdWr N test0 test1 test2 test3 test4 test5 test6 test7 > ----------- ---- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > i1,s8 rnd rd 2 20.6 30.0 > i1,s8 rnd rd 4 2.0 4.8 26.1 22.8 > i1,s8 rnd rd 8 0.7 1.3 3.5 4.6 15.2 16.1 10.0 10.2 > These are rates MB/s? I think we need to look at the disk time also because we try to provide fairness in terms of disk time. In many a cases it very closely maps to rates also but not always. Is group_isolation enabled for these test cases. If not, these results are surprising as I would expect all the random readers to be in root group and then almost match base results. But these seem to be very different from base results. So may be group_isolation=1. If that's the case, then we do see service differentiation but this does not seem too proportionate in terms of weight. Looking at disk.time and disk.dequeue file will help here. Stopping parsing till I you get a chance to let me know some of the parameters. Thanks Vivek > i1,s8 rnd wr 2 18.5 49.6 > i1,s8 rnd wr 4 1.0 2.1 19.7 40.0 > i1,s8 rnd wr 8 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.6 3.2 15.1 24.5 > > i1,s8 rnd rdwr 2 16.4 32.7 > i1,s8 rnd rdwr 4 1.2 3.5 16.2 20.8 > i1,s8 rnd rdwr 8 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.6 2.1 3.6 9.3 11.3 > > > i1,s8 seq rd 2 202.8 403.2 > i1,s8 seq rd 4 91.9 115.3 181.9 217.7 > i1,s8 seq rd 8 39.1 76.1 73.7 74.6 74.9 75.6 84.6 104.3 > > i1,s8 seq wr 2 246.8 479.1 > i1,s8 seq wr 4 108.1 157.4 201.9 254.6 > i1,s8 seq wr 8 52.2 81.0 80.8 83.0 90.9 95.6 108.6 118.3 > > i1,s8 seq rdwr 2 226.9 438.4 > i1,s8 seq rdwr 4 103.4 139.4 186.4 227.7 > i1,s8 seq rdwr 8 53.4 77.4 77.4 77.9 79.7 82.1 93.5 105.1 > > ----------- ---- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > Test Mode RdWr N test0 test1 test2 test3 test4 test5 test6 test7 > ----------- ---- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > i1,s0 rnd rd 2 21.7 21.6 > i1,s0 rnd rd 4 12.4 12.0 9.7 7.0 > i1,s0 rnd rd 8 2.7 2.8 7.4 7.6 4.4 4.1 4.4 3.5 > > i1,s0 rnd wr 2 35.4 34.0 > i1,s0 rnd wr 4 19.9 19.9 13.7 12.4 > i1,s0 rnd wr 8 4.0 3.8 17.5 19.8 4.4 3.9 4.5 3.5 > > i1,s0 rnd rdwr 2 27.4 26.9 > i1,s0 rnd rdwr 4 14.1 14.8 10.6 10.9 > i1,s0 rnd rdwr 8 2.7 3.1 10.3 10.5 5.6 4.7 5.1 4.1 > > > i1,s0 seq rd 2 301.4 301.3 > i1,s0 seq rd 4 157.8 156.9 145.1 146.2 > i1,s0 seq rd 8 76.4 76.4 75.2 74.9 76.7 75.4 74.3 75.7 > > i1,s0 seq wr 2 351.5 352.4 > i1,s0 seq wr 4 156.5 156.4 156.1 158.1 > i1,s0 seq wr 8 80.3 79.7 81.3 80.8 75.8 76.2 77.7 79.4 > > i1,s0 seq rdwr 2 340.6 339.6 > i1,s0 seq rdwr 4 162.5 161.7 157.9 157.8 > i1,s0 seq rdwr 8 77.2 77.1 80.1 80.4 78.6 79.1 80.8 80.3 > -- 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