linux-kernel - Re: fio mmap randread 64k more than 40% regression with 2.6.33-rc1

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]

Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:00:30 -0500
From:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Cc:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>,
	"Zhang\, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: fio mmap randread 64k more than 40% regression with 2.6.33-rc1

Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com> writes:

> On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 13:40 -0800, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 09:10:33PM +0100, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Zhang, Yanmin
>> > <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 17:27 +0100, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
>> > >> Hi Yanmin
>> > >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com> wrote:
>> > >> > Hi Yanmin,
>> > >> >> When low_latency=1, we get the biggest number with kernel 2.6.32.
>> > >> >> Comparing with low_latency=0's result, the prior one is about 4% better.
>> > >> > Ok, so 2.6.33 + corrado (with low_latency =0) is comparable with
>> > >> > fastest 2.6.32, so we can consider the first part of the problem
>> > >> > solved.
>> > >> >
>> > >> I think we can return now to your full script with queue merging.
>> > >> I'm wondering if (in arm_slice_timer):
>> > >> -       if (cfqq->dispatched)
>> > >> +      if (cfqq->dispatched || (cfqq->new_cfqq && rq_in_driver(cfqd)))
>> > >>                return;
>> > >> gives the same improvement you were experiencing just reverting to rq_in_driver.
>> > > I did a quick testing against 2.6.33-rc1. With the new method, fio mmap randread 46k
>> > > has about 20% improvement. With just checking rq_in_driver(cfqd), it has
>> > > about 33% improvement.
>> > >
>> > Jeff, do you have an idea why in arm_slice_timer, checking
>> > rq_in_driver instead of cfqq->dispatched gives so much improvement in
>> > presence of queue merging, while it doesn't have noticeable effect
>> > when there are no merges?
>> 
>> Performance improvement because of replacing cfqq->dispatched with
>> rq_in_driver() is really strange. This will mean we will do even lesser
>> idling on the cfqq. That means faster cfqq switching and that should mean more
>> seeks (for this test case) and reduce throughput. This is just opposite to your approach of treating a random read mmap queue as sync where we will idle on
>> the queue.
> I used to look at the issue, but not fully understand it. Some
> interesting finding:
> the cfqq->dispatched cause cfq_select_queue frequently switch queues.
> it appears frequent switch can make we could quickly switch to
> sequential requests in the workload. without the cfqq->dispatched, we
> dispatch queue1 request, M requests from other queues, queue1 request.
> with it, we dispatch queue1 request, N requests from other queues,
> queue1 request. It appears M < N from blktrace, which cause we have less
> seeky. I don't see any other obvious difference from blktrace in the two
> cases.

I thought there was merging and/or unmerging activity.  You don't
mention that here.

I'll see if I can reproduce it.

Cheers,
Jeff
--
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/