linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cfq-iosched: non-rot devices do not need read queue merging

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: <20100104183255.GE7968@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 4 Jan 2010 13:32:55 -0500
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc:	Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfq-iosched: non-rot devices do not need read queue
	merging

On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 11:51:00AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com> writes:
> 
> > Hi Vivkek,
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:22:47PM +0100, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> >>> Non rotational devices' performances are not affected by
> >>> distance of read requests, so there is no point in having
> >>> overhead to merge such queues.
> >>> This doesn't apply to writes, so this patch changes the
> >>> queued[] field, to be indexed by READ/WRITE instead of
> >>> SYNC/ASYNC, and only compute proximity for queues with
> >>> WRITE requests.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi Corrado,
> >>
> >> What's the reason that reads don't benefit from merging queues and hence
> >> merging requests and only writes do on SSD?
> >
> > On SSDs, reads are just limited by the maximum transfer rate, and
> > larger (i.e. merged) reads will just take proportionally longer.
> 
> This is simply not true.  You can get more bandwidth from an SSD (I just
> checked numbers for 2 vendors' devices) by issuing larger read requests,
> no matter whether the access pattern is sequential or random.
> 

In my simple testing of 4 fio threads doing direct sequential reads
throughput varies significantly if I vary bs from 4K to 128K.

bs=4K		65MB/s
bs=128K		228MB/s

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/