[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DAC853C.5070509@fusionio.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:38:52 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@...il.com>,
Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [Bug #32982] Kernel locks up a few minutes after boot
On 2011-04-18 20:32, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-04-18 20:21, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> a performance regression in the block layer not related to the md
>>> issue. If I run a small block IOPS test on a block device created by
>>> ib_srp (NOOP scheduler) I see about 11% less IOPS than with 2.6.38.3
>>> (155.000 IOPS with 2.6.38.3 and 140.000 IOPS with 2.6.39-rc3+).
>>
>> That's not good. What's the test case?
>
> Nothing more than a fio IOPS test:
>
> fio --bs=512 --ioengine=libaio --buffered=0 --rw=read --thread
> --iodepth=64 --numjobs=2 --loops=10000 --group_reporting --size=1G
> --gtod_reduce=1 --name=iops-test --filename=/dev/${dev} --invalidate=1
Interesting, I'll have to check if we regressed with all these recent
changes. Comparing your .38 to .39-rc3+, are you using more/less CPU,
more/less sys%, etc?
A quick perf record -fg / perf report -g for both kernels would be nice
to see.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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