| 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: <20120128170137.GH29272@MAIL.13thfloor.at>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:01:37 +0100
From: Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>
To: Wu Fengguang <wfg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Bad SSD performance with recent kernels
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 08:51:08PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> Hi Herbert,
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 07:00:34AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>> Dear Community!
>> Recently I decided to update the kernel on a Dell Laptop to
>> a more recent version than 2.6.38.x, but experienced bad
>> I/O performance with the new kernel, so I started to dig
>> a little deeper and ended up with the following test:
>> 1) download and extract kernel (on 2.6.38.8)
>> 2) make defconfig
>> 3) make localmodconfig
>> 4) make
>> 5) make modules_install install
>> Then I booted each kernel in single user and ran the following
>> test script:
>> echo noop >/sys/class/block/sda/queue/scheduler
>> for n in 1 2 3; do sync; echo $n > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; done
>> /usr/bin/time -f "real = %e, user = %U, sys = %S, %P cpu" \
>> ionice -c0 nice -20 \
>> dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=1M count=20480
>> echo deadline >/sys/class/block/sda/queue/scheduler
>> for n in 1 2 3; do sync; echo $n > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; done
>> /usr/bin/time -f "real = %e, user = %U, sys = %S, %P cpu" \
>> ionice -c0 nice -20 \
>> dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=1M count=20480
>> echo cfq >/sys/class/block/sda/queue/scheduler
>> for n in 1 2 3; do sync; echo $n > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; done
>> /usr/bin/time -f "real = %e, user = %U, sys = %S, %P cpu" \
>> ionice -c0 nice -20 \
>> dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=1M count=20480
>> note that the Laptop is a relatively modern Latitude E6400
>> with a Samsung 830 Series 256GB SSD
>> here are the surprising results:
>> @ linux 2.6.38.8
>> 248 MB/s real = 86.74, user = 0.01, sys = 21.65, 24% cpu
>> 248 MB/s real = 86.81, user = 0.02, sys = 21.75, 25% cpu
>> 251 MB/s real = 85.63, user = 0.01, sys = 22.24, 25% cpu
>> @ linux 2.6.39.4
>> 49.0 MB/s real = 438.79, user = 0.01, sys = 19.79, 4% cpu
>> 25.7 MB/s real = 836.70, user = 0.02, sys = 18.39, 2% cpu
>> 27.7 MB/s real = 776.53, user = 0.01, sys = 16.03, 2% cpu
>> @ linux 3.0.18
>> 48.9 MB/s real = 439.07, user = 0.01, sys = 17.55, 4% cpu
>> 25.0 MB/s real = 859.03, user = 0.01, sys = 16.97, 1% cpu
>> 49.8 MB/s real = 431.61, user = 0.01, sys = 16.68, 3% cpu
>> @ linux 3.1.10
>> 54.0 MB/s real = 398.23, user = 0.01, sys = 17.36, 4% cpu
>> 29.4 MB/s real = 731.47, user = 0.01, sys = 17.14, 2% cpu
>> 25.0 MB/s real = 859.35, user = 0.01, sys = 14.51, 1% cpu
>> @ linux 3.2.2
>> 45.8 MB/s real = 468.85, user = 0.01, sys = 17.11, 3% cpu
>> 44.8 MB/s real = 478.92, user = 0.01, sys = 17.02, 3% cpu
>> 45.0 MB/s real = 476.91, user = 0.01, sys = 16.14, 3% cpu
> Thanks for the through tests! However I cannot reproduce the
> regressions, but see slightly better performance in 3.2:
> Linux lkp-nex04 3.2.0-rc7-shli+ #121 SMP Thu Jan 19 18:10:45 CST 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> 21474836480 bytes (21 GB) copied, 90.9307 s, 236 MB/s real = 91.03, user = 0.01, sys = 25.80, 28% cpu
> 21474836480 bytes (21 GB) copied, 90.8864 s, 236 MB/s real = 90.90, user = 0.01, sys = 25.54, 28% cpu
> 21474836480 bytes (21 GB) copied, 93.4684 s, 230 MB/s real = 93.47, user = 0.02, sys = 25.12, 26% cpu
> Linux lkp-nex04 2.6.38 #334 SMP Sat Jan 28 20:16:25 CST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> 21474836480 bytes (21 GB) copied, 96.2382 s, 223 MB/s real = 96.29, user = 0.01, sys = 57.64, 59% cpu
> 21474836480 bytes (21 GB) copied, 96.5796 s, 222 MB/s real = 96.60, user = 0.02, sys = 58.08, 60% cpu
> 21474836480 bytes (21 GB) copied, 95.486 s, 225 MB/s real = 95.51, user = 0.00, sys = 58.20, 60% cpu
> My test box has 64GB memory and a dozen 80GB INTEL
> SSDSA2M080G2GN SSD drives attached to
so we have intel vs samsung here ...
> 87:00.0 Serial Attached SCSI controller: LSI Logic / Symbios
> Logic SAS2008 PCI-Express Fusion-MPT SAS-2 [Falcon] (rev 02)
... and sas vs sata
>> I have no idea why the I/O performance is that bad on any
>> kernel newer than 2.6.38.x, but I'm happy to test and/or
>> try various configurations as time permits ...
> Would you please create a filesystem and large file on sda and
> run the tests on the file? There was some performance bug on
> reading the raw /dev/sda device file..
will do tonight!
>> The detailed test results as well as the dmesg and config
>> of each kernel can be found here:
>> http://vserver.13thfloor.at/Stuff/SSD
> It would be better for such files be attached in future.
> (For one thing I get timeout when trying to open the link...)
attached the files as .txz
thanks,
Herbert
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
>> here some technical information:
>> http://www.dell.com/us/dfb/p/latitude-e6400/pd
>> SATA controller: Intel Corporation ICH9M/M-E SATA AHCI Controller (rev 03)
>> http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/memory-cards-hdd-odd/ssd/ssd/MZ-7PC256N/EU-spec
>> Model=SAMSUNG SSD 830 Series, FwRev=CXM03B1Q
>> supposed 520MB/s seq. read, 320MB/s seq. write, 75K IOPS
>> --
>> 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/
Download attachment "SSD.txz" of type "application/octet-stream" (57008 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists