| 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: <1260295541.6686.37.camel@cail> Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:05:41 -0500 From: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@...com> To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.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 Tue, 2009-12-08 at 11:32 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 10:17:48AM -0500, Alan D. Brunelle wrote: > > Hi Vivek - > > > > Sorry, I've been off doing other work and haven't had time to follow up > > on this (until recently). I have runs based upon Jens' for-2.6.33 tree > > as of commit 0d99519efef15fd0cf84a849492c7b1deee1e4b7 and your V4 patch > > sequence (the refresh patch you sent me on 3 December 2009). I _think_ > > things look pretty darn good. > > That's good to hear. :-) > > >There are three modes compared: > > > > (1) base - just Jens' for-2.6.33 tree, not patched. > > (2) i1,s8 - Your patches added and slice_idle set to 8 (default) > > (3) i1,s0 - Your patched added and slice_idle set to 0 > > > > Thanks Alan. Whenever you run your tests again, it would be better to run > it against Jens's for-2.6.33 branch as Jens has merged block IO controller > patches. Will do another set of runs w/ the straight branch. > > > I did both synchronous and asynchronous runs, direct I/Os in both case, > > random and sequential, with reads, writes and 80%/20% read/write cases. > > The results are in throughput (as reported by fio). The first table > > shows overall test results, the other tables show breakdowns per cgroup > > (disk). > > What is asynchronous direct sequential read? Reads done through libaio? Yep - An asynchronous run would have fio job files like: [global] size=8g overwrite=0 runtime=120 ioengine=libaio iodepth=128 iodepth_low=128 iodepth_batch=128 iodepth_batch_complete=32 direct=1 bs=4k readwrite=randread [/mnt/sda/data.0] filename=/mnt/sda/data.0 The equivalent synchronous run would be: [global] size=8g overwrite=0 runtime=120 ioengine=sync direct=1 bs=4k readwrite=randread [/mnt/sda/data.0] filename=/mnt/sda/data.0 ~ > > Few thoughts/questions inline. > > > > > Regards, > > Alan > > > > I am assuming that purpose of following table is to see what is the > overhead of IO controller patches. If yes, this looks more or less > good except there is slight dip in as seq rd case. > > > ---- ---- - --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- > > Mode RdWr N as,base as,i1,s8 as,i1,s0 sy,base sy,i1,s8 sy,i1,s0 > > ---- ---- - --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- > > rnd rd 2 39.7 39.1 43.7 20.5 20.5 20.4 > > rnd rd 4 33.9 33.3 41.2 28.5 28.5 28.5 > > rnd rd 8 23.7 25.0 36.7 34.4 34.5 34.6 > > > > slice_idle=0 improves throughput for "as" case. That's interesting. > Especially in case of 8 random readers running. Well that should be a > general CFQ property and not effect of group IO control. > > I am not sure, why did you not capture base with slice_idle=0 mode so that > apple vs apple comaprison could be done. Could add that...will add that... > > > > rnd wr 2 66.1 67.8 68.9 71.8 71.8 71.9 > > rnd wr 4 57.8 62.9 66.1 64.1 64.2 64.3 > > rnd wr 8 39.5 47.4 60.6 54.7 54.6 54.9 > > > > rnd rdwr 2 50.2 49.1 54.5 31.1 31.1 31.1 > > rnd rdwr 4 41.4 41.3 50.9 38.9 39.1 39.6 > > rnd rdwr 8 28.1 30.5 46.3 42.5 42.6 43.8 > > > > seq rd 2 612.3 605.7 611.2 509.6 528.3 608.6 > > seq rd 4 614.1 606.9 606.2 493.0 490.6 615.4 > > seq rd 8 613.6 603.8 605.9 453.0 461.8 617.6 > > > > Not sure where does this 1-2% dip in as seq read comes from. > > > > seq wr 2 694.6 726.1 701.2 685.8 661.8 314.2 > > seq wr 4 687.6 715.3 628.3 702.9 702.3 317.8 > > seq wr 8 695.0 710.0 629.8 704.0 708.3 339.4 > > > > seq rdwr 2 692.3 664.9 693.8 508.4 504.0 642.8 > > seq rdwr 4 664.5 657.1 639.3 484.5 481.0 694.3 > > seq rdwr 8 659.0 648.0 634.4 458.1 460.4 709.6 > > > > =============================================================== > > > > ----------- ---- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > > Test Mode RdWr N test0 test1 test2 test3 test4 test5 test6 test7 > > ----------- ---- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > > as,base rnd rd 2 20.0 19.7 > > as,base rnd rd 4 8.8 8.5 8.3 8.3 > > as,base rnd rd 8 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.2 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.6 > > > > as,base rnd wr 2 33.2 32.9 > > as,base rnd wr 4 15.9 15.2 14.5 12.3 > > as,base rnd wr 8 5.8 3.4 7.8 8.7 3.5 3.4 3.8 3.1 > > > > as,base rnd rdwr 2 25.0 25.2 > > as,base rnd rdwr 4 10.6 10.4 10.2 10.2 > > as,base rnd rdwr 8 3.7 3.6 4.0 4.1 3.2 3.4 3.3 2.9 > > > > > > as,base seq rd 2 305.9 306.4 > > as,base seq rd 4 159.4 160.5 147.3 146.9 > > as,base seq rd 8 79.7 80.0 77.3 78.4 73.0 70.0 77.5 77.7 > > > > as,base seq wr 2 348.6 346.0 > > as,base seq wr 4 189.9 187.6 154.7 155.3 > > as,base seq wr 8 87.9 88.3 84.7 85.3 84.5 85.1 90.4 88.8 > > > > as,base seq rdwr 2 347.2 345.1 > > as,base seq rdwr 4 181.6 181.8 150.8 150.2 > > as,base seq rdwr 8 83.6 82.1 82.1 82.7 80.6 82.7 82.2 82.9 > > > > ----------- ---- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > > Test Mode RdWr N test0 test1 test2 test3 test4 test5 test6 test7 > > ----------- ---- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > > as,i1,s8 rnd rd 2 12.7 26.3 > > as,i1,s8 rnd rd 4 1.2 3.7 12.2 16.3 > > as,i1,s8 rnd rd 8 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.1 3.5 6.7 8.4 > > > > This looks more or less good except the fact that last two groups seem to > have got much more share of disk. In general it would be nice to also > capture the disk time also apart from BW. What specifically are you looking for? Any other fields from the fio output? I have all that data & could reprocess it easily enough. > > > as,i1,s8 rnd wr 2 18.5 49.3 > > as,i1,s8 rnd wr 4 1.0 1.6 20.7 39.6 > > as,i1,s8 rnd wr 8 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.7 2.5 15.5 24.5 > > > > Same as random read. Last two group got much more BW than their share. Can > you send me your exact fio command you used to run async workload. I would > like to try it out on my system and see what's happenig. > > > as,i1,s8 rnd rdwr 2 16.2 32.9 > > as,i1,s8 rnd rdwr 4 1.2 4.7 15.6 19.9 > > as,i1,s8 rnd rdwr 8 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.7 2.1 3.4 9.4 11.5 > > > > as,i1,s8 seq rd 2 202.7 403.0 > > as,i1,s8 seq rd 4 92.1 114.7 182.4 217.6 > > as,i1,s8 seq rd 8 38.7 76.2 74.0 73.9 74.5 74.7 84.7 107.0 > > > > as,i1,s8 seq wr 2 243.8 482.3 > > as,i1,s8 seq wr 4 107.7 155.5 200.4 251.7 > > as,i1,s8 seq wr 8 52.1 77.2 81.9 80.8 89.6 99.9 109.8 118.7 > > > > We do see increasing BW in case of async seq rd and seq wr but again is > not very proportionate to weights. Again disk time will help here. > > > as,i1,s8 seq rdwr 2 225.8 439.1 > > as,i1,s8 seq rdwr 4 103.2 140.2 186.5 227.2 > > as,i1,s8 seq rdwr 8 50.3 77.4 77.5 78.9 80.5 83.9 94.3 105.2 > > > > ----------- ---- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > > Test Mode RdWr N test0 test1 test2 test3 test4 test5 test6 test7 > > ----------- ---- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > > as,i1,s0 rnd rd 2 21.9 21.8 > > as,i1,s0 rnd rd 4 11.4 12.0 9.1 8.7 > > as,i1,s0 rnd rd 8 3.2 3.2 6.7 6.7 4.7 4.0 4.7 3.5 > > > > as,i1,s0 rnd wr 2 34.5 34.4 > > as,i1,s0 rnd wr 4 21.6 20.5 12.6 11.4 > > as,i1,s0 rnd wr 8 5.1 4.8 18.2 16.9 4.1 4.0 4.0 3.3 > > > > as,i1,s0 rnd rdwr 2 27.5 27.0 > > as,i1,s0 rnd rdwr 4 16.1 15.4 10.2 9.2 > > as,i1,s0 rnd rdwr 8 5.3 4.6 9.9 9.7 4.6 4.0 4.4 3.8 > > > > as,i1,s0 seq rd 2 305.5 305.6 > > as,i1,s0 seq rd 4 159.5 157.3 144.1 145.3 > > as,i1,s0 seq rd 8 74.1 74.6 76.7 76.4 74.6 76.7 75.5 77.4 > > > > as,i1,s0 seq wr 2 350.3 350.9 > > as,i1,s0 seq wr 4 160.3 161.7 153.1 153.2 > > as,i1,s0 seq wr 8 79.5 80.9 78.2 78.7 79.7 78.3 77.8 76.7 > > > > as,i1,s0 seq rdwr 2 346.8 347.0 > > as,i1,s0 seq rdwr 4 163.3 163.5 156.7 155.8 > > as,i1,s0 seq rdwr 8 79.1 79.4 80.1 80.3 79.1 78.9 79.6 77.8 > > > > ----------- ---- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > > Test Mode RdWr N test0 test1 test2 test3 test4 test5 test6 test7 > > ----------- ---- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > > sy,base rnd rd 2 10.2 10.2 > > sy,base rnd rd 4 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.0 > > sy,base rnd rd 8 4.1 4.1 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.1 > > > > sy,base rnd wr 2 36.1 35.7 > > sy,base rnd wr 4 16.7 16.5 15.6 15.3 > > sy,base rnd wr 8 5.7 5.4 9.0 8.6 6.6 6.5 6.8 6.0 > > > > sy,base rnd rdwr 2 15.5 15.5 > > sy,base rnd rdwr 4 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.6 > > sy,base rnd rdwr 8 4.8 4.9 5.8 5.8 5.4 5.4 5.4 4.9 > > > > sy,base seq rd 2 254.7 254.8 > > sy,base seq rd 4 124.2 123.6 121.8 123.4 > > sy,base seq rd 8 56.9 56.5 56.1 56.8 56.6 56.7 56.5 56.9 > > > > sy,base seq wr 2 343.1 342.8 > > sy,base seq wr 4 177.4 177.9 173.1 174.7 > > sy,base seq wr 8 86.2 87.5 87.6 89.5 86.8 89.6 88.0 88.7 > > > > sy,base seq rdwr 2 254.0 254.4 > > sy,base seq rdwr 4 124.2 124.5 118.0 117.8 > > sy,base seq rdwr 8 57.2 56.8 57.0 58.8 56.8 56.3 57.5 57.8 > > > > ----------- ---- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > > Test Mode RdWr N test0 test1 test2 test3 test4 test5 test6 test7 > > ----------- ---- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > > sy,i1,s8 rnd rd 2 10.2 10.2 > > sy,i1,s8 rnd rd 4 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.1 > > sy,i1,s8 rnd rd 8 4.1 4.1 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.2 > > > > This is consitent. All random/sync-idle IO will be in root group with > group_isolation=0 and we will not see service differentiation between > groups. > > > sy,i1,s8 rnd wr 2 36.2 35.5 > > sy,i1,s8 rnd wr 4 16.9 17.0 15.3 15.0 > > sy,i1,s8 rnd wr 8 5.7 5.6 8.5 8.7 6.7 6.5 6.6 6.3 > > > > On my system I was seeing service differentiation for random writes also. > The kind of pattern fio was generating, for most part of the run, CFQ > categorized these as sync-idle workload hence these got fairness even with > group_isolation=0. > > If you run the same test with group_isolation=1, you should see better > numbers for this case. I'll work on updating my script to work w/ the new FIO bits (that have cgroup included). > > > sy,i1,s8 rnd rdwr 2 15.5 15.5 > > sy,i1,s8 rnd rdwr 4 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.6 > > sy,i1,s8 rnd rdwr 8 4.9 4.9 5.9 5.8 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.0 > > > > sy,i1,s8 seq rd 2 165.9 362.3 > > sy,i1,s8 seq rd 4 54.0 97.2 145.5 193.9 > > sy,i1,s8 seq rd 8 14.9 31.4 41.8 52.8 62.8 73.2 85.9 98.8 > > > > sy,i1,s8 seq wr 2 220.7 441.1 > > sy,i1,s8 seq wr 4 77.6 141.9 208.6 274.3 > > sy,i1,s8 seq wr 8 24.9 47.3 63.8 79.1 97.8 114.8 132.1 148.6 > > > > Above seq rd and seq wr look very good. BW seems to be in proportiona to > weight. > > > sy,i1,s8 seq rdwr 2 167.7 336.4 > > sy,i1,s8 seq rdwr 4 54.5 98.2 141.1 187.2 > > sy,i1,s8 seq rdwr 8 16.7 31.8 41.4 52.3 63.1 73.9 84.6 96.7 > > > > with slice_idle=0 generally you will not get any service differentiation > until and unless group is continously backlogged. So if you launch > multiple processes in the group, then you should see service > differentiation even with slice_idle=0. > > > ----------- ---- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > > Test Mode RdWr N test0 test1 test2 test3 test4 test5 test6 test7 > > ----------- ---- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > > sy,i1,s0 rnd rd 2 10.2 10.2 > > sy,i1,s0 rnd rd 4 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.1 > > sy,i1,s0 rnd rd 8 4.1 4.1 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.2 > > > > sy,i1,s0 rnd wr 2 36.3 35.6 > > sy,i1,s0 rnd wr 4 16.9 17.0 15.3 15.2 > > sy,i1,s0 rnd wr 8 6.0 6.0 8.9 8.8 6.5 6.2 6.5 5.9 > > > > sy,i1,s0 rnd rdwr 2 15.6 15.6 > > sy,i1,s0 rnd rdwr 4 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.8 > > sy,i1,s0 rnd rdwr 8 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.1 > > > > sy,i1,s0 seq rd 2 304.2 304.3 > > sy,i1,s0 seq rd 4 154.2 154.2 153.4 153.7 > > sy,i1,s0 seq rd 8 76.9 76.8 77.3 76.9 77.1 77.2 77.4 78.0 > > > > sy,i1,s0 seq wr 2 156.8 157.4 > > sy,i1,s0 seq wr 4 80.7 79.6 78.5 79.0 > > sy,i1,s0 seq wr 8 43.2 41.7 41.7 42.6 42.1 42.6 42.8 42.7 > > > > sy,i1,s0 seq rdwr 2 321.1 321.7 > > sy,i1,s0 seq rdwr 4 174.2 174.0 172.6 173.6 > > sy,i1,s0 seq rdwr 8 86.6 86.3 88.6 88.9 90.2 89.8 90.1 89.0 > > > > In summary, async results look little bit off and need investigation. Can > you please send me one sample async fio script. The fio file I included above should help, right? If not, let me know, I'll send you all the command files... > > Thanks > Vivek -- 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