linux-kernel - Re: fio posixaio performance problem

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:	Thu, 04 Aug 2011 10:00:33 +0800
From:	Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>
CC:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fio posixaio performance problem

On 2011-8-4 8:53, Shaohua Li wrote:
> 2011/8/4 Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>:
>> On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 11:45:33AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 05:48:54PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
>>>> On 2011-8-3 16:22, Shaohua Li wrote:
>>>>> 2011/8/3 Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>:
>>>>>> On 2011-8-3 15:38, Shaohua Li wrote:
>>>>>>> 2011/8/3 Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I ran a fio test to simulate qemu-kvm io behaviour.
>>>>>>>> When job number is greater than 2, IO performance is
>>>>>>>> really bad.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1 thread: aggrb=15,129KB/s
>>>>>>>> 4 thread: aggrb=1,049KB/s
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kernel: lastest upstream
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any idea?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> [global]
>>>>>>>> runtime=30
>>>>>>>> time_based=1
>>>>>>>> size=1G
>>>>>>>> group_reporting=1
>>>>>>>> ioengine=posixaio
>>>>>>>> exec_prerun='echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches'
>>>>>>>> thread=1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [kvmio-1]
>>>>>>>> description=kvmio-1
>>>>>>>> numjobs=4
>>>>>>>> rw=write
>>>>>>>> bs=4k
>>>>>>>> direct=1
>>>>>>>> filename=/mnt/sda4/1G.img
>>>>>>> Hmm, the test runs always about 15M/s at my side regardless how many threads.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CFQ？
>>>>> yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> what's the slice_idle value?
>>>>> default value. I didn't change it.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, I use a sata disk, and can reproduce this bug every time...
>>>
>>> Do you have blktrace of run with 4 jobs?
>>
>> I can't reproduce it too. On my sata disk single thread is getting around
>> 23-24MB/s and 4 threads get around 19-20MB/sec. Some of the throughput
>> is gone into seeking so that is expected.
>>
>> I think what you are trying to point out is idling issue. In your workload
>> every thread is doing sync-idle IO. So idling is enabled on each thread.
>> On my system I see that next thread preempts the current idle thread
>> because they all are doing IO in nearby area of file and rq_close() is
>> true hence preemption is allowed.
>>
>> On your system, I think somehow rq_close() is not true hence preemption
>> does not take place and we continue to idle on that thread. That also
>> is not necessarily too bad but it might be happening that we are waiting
>> for completion of IO from some other thread before this thread (we are
>> idling on) can do more writes due to some filesystem rescrition and
>> that can lead to sudden throughput drop. blktrace will give some idea.
> with idle, the workload fallbacks like the one thread case, I don't
> expect so big reduction.
> I saw some back seek in the workload because we have rq_close() preempt here.
> is it possible back seek penality in the disk is big?

Shaohua,

what do you mean "back seek penality" here. AFAIK, back seek penality only happens
when choosing next request to serve. Is there anything to do with preemption logic?

Gui

> 
> 


--
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/