linux-kernel - Re: Bad SSD performance with recent kernels

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: <CANejiEW86b7btiOcVFF3qVhqU1t6FRosvgfiydWwU5zgeDFOqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:17:38 +0800
From:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
To:	Wu Fengguang <wfg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>,
	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

2012/1/30 Wu Fengguang <wfg@...ux.intel.com>:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 02:13:51PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Le dimanche 29 janvier 2012 à 19:16 +0800, Wu Fengguang a écrit :
>>
>>
>> > Note that as long as buffered read(2) is used, it makes almost no
>> > difference (well, at least for now) to do "dd bs=128k" or "dd bs=2MB":
>> > the 128kb readahead size will be used underneath to submit read IO.
>> >
>>
>> Hmm...
>>
>> # echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ;dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=128k count=32768
>> 32768+0 enregistrements lus
>> 32768+0 enregistrements écrits
>> 4294967296 octets (4,3 GB) copiés, 20,7718 s, 207 MB/s
>>
>>
>> # echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ;dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=2M count=2048
>> 2048+0 enregistrements lus
>> 2048+0 enregistrements écrits
>> 4294967296 octets (4,3 GB) copiés, 27,7824 s, 155 MB/s
>
> Interesting. Here are my test results:
>
> root@...-nex04 /home/wfg# echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ;dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=128k count=32768
> 32768+0 records in
> 32768+0 records out
> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 19.0121 s, 226 MB/s
> root@...-nex04 /home/wfg# echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ;dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=2M count=2048
> 2048+0 records in
> 2048+0 records out
> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 19.0214 s, 226 MB/s
>
> Maybe the /dev/sda performance bug on your machine is sensitive to timing?
I got similar result:
128k: 224M/s
1M: 182M/s

1M block size is slow, I guess it's CPU related.

And as for the big regression with newer kernel than 2.6.38, please
check if idle=poll
helps. CPU idle dramatically impacts disk performance and even latest
cpuidle governor
doesn't help for some CPUs.

Thanks,
Shaohua
--
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/