[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <539B6D1A.3010602@fb.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:28:58 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
To: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
CC: Matias Bjørling <m@...rling.me>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
"sbradshaw@...ron.com" <sbradshaw@...ron.com>,
"tom.leiming@...il.com" <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] NVMe: conversion to blk-mq
On 06/13/2014 01:22 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
> One performance oddity we observe is that servicing the interrupt on the
> thread sibling of the core that submitted the I/O is the worst performing
> cpu you can chose; it's actually better to use a different core on the
> same node. At least that's true as long as you're not utilizing the cpus
> for other work, so YMMV.
This doesn't match what I see here. Just ran some test cases - both
sync, and higher QD. For sync performance, core or thread sibling is the
best choice, other CPUs next. That is pretty logical.
For a more loaded run, thread sibling ends up being a better choice than
core, since core runs out of steam (255K vs 275K here). And thread
sibling is still a marginally better choice than some other core on the
same node.
Which pretty much matches my expectations of what the best mappings
would be.
--
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