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  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:	Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:09:13 +0200
From:	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
CC:	Robert Elliot <Elliott@...com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: scsi-mq

On 06/18/14 05:44, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Thanks for posting these numbers, Bart. The CPU utilization and IOPS
> speak a very clear message. The only mystery is why the singe threaded
> performance is down. That we need to get sort, but it's not a show
> stopper for inclusion.
> 
> If you run the single threaded tests and watch for queue depths, is
> there a difference between blk-mq=y/scsi-mq and the stock kernel?

Hello Jens,

Fio reports the same queue depth for use_blk_mq=Y (mq below) and 
use_blk_mq=N (sq below), namely ">=64". However, the number of context
switches differs significantly for the random read-write tests. From
the fio output for these tests:

$ grep ctx= {sq,mq}/randrw*
sq/randrw-1.txt:  cpu          : usr=10.25%, sys=89.42%, ctx=2210, majf=0, minf=1
sq/randrw-2.txt:  cpu          : usr=10.23%, sys=89.34%, ctx=5003, majf=0, minf=2
sq/randrw-3.txt:  cpu          : usr=9.36%, sys=90.21%, ctx=7947, majf=0, minf=3
sq/randrw-4.txt:  cpu          : usr=8.96%, sys=90.10%, ctx=19308, majf=0, minf=4
sq/randrw-5.txt:  cpu          : usr=8.97%, sys=89.70%, ctx=31494, majf=0, minf=5
sq/randrw-6.txt:  cpu          : usr=8.39%, sys=90.08%, ctx=47826, majf=0, minf=6
sq/randrw-7.txt:  cpu          : usr=7.65%, sys=89.65%, ctx=130563, majf=0, minf=7
sq/randrw-8.txt:  cpu          : usr=6.47%, sys=84.08%, ctx=753140, majf=0, minf=8
mq/randrw-1.txt:  cpu          : usr=1.43%, sys=14.43%, ctx=500998, majf=0, minf=1
mq/randrw-2.txt:  cpu          : usr=1.37%, sys=14.13%, ctx=979842, majf=0, minf=2
mq/randrw-3.txt:  cpu          : usr=1.47%, sys=14.81%, ctx=1547996, majf=0, minf=3
mq/randrw-4.txt:  cpu          : usr=1.79%, sys=16.51%, ctx=2321154, majf=0, minf=4
mq/randrw-5.txt:  cpu          : usr=2.49%, sys=22.09%, ctx=4145747, majf=0, minf=5
mq/randrw-6.txt:  cpu          : usr=2.98%, sys=27.07%, ctx=6356183, majf=0, minf=6
mq/randrw-7.txt:  cpu          : usr=3.39%, sys=30.48%, ctx=8675960, majf=0, minf=7
mq/randrw-8.txt:  cpu          : usr=3.37%, sys=31.46%, ctx=10462001, majf=0, minf=8

It seems like with the traditional SCSI mid-layer and block core (sq)
that the number of context switches does not depend too much on the
number of I/O operations but that for the multi-queue SCSI core there
are a little bit more than two context switches per I/O in the
particular test I ran. The "randrw" script I used for this test takes
SCSI LUNs as arguments (/dev/sdX) and starts the fio tool as follows:

for d in "$@"; do
    if [ ! -e "$d" ]; then
	echo "Error: device $d not found."
	exit 1
    fi
    bdev="/sys/class/block/$(basename $d)"
    if [ -e $bdev/queue ]; then
	echo 0    >$bdev/queue/add_random
	echo 0    >$bdev/queue/rotational
	echo 2    >$bdev/queue/rq_affinity
	echo noop >$bdev/queue/scheduler
    fi
done

"$(dirname $0)"/disable-frequency-scaling

fio --bs=512 --ioengine=libaio --rw=randrw --iodepth=128          \
    --iodepth_batch=64 --iodepth_batch_complete=64                \
    --buffered=0 --norandommap --thread --loops=$((2**31))        \
    --runtime=60 --group_reporting --gtod_reduce=1 --invalidate=1 \
    $(for d in "$@"; do echo --name=$d --filename=$d; done)

"$(dirname $0)"/restore-frequency-scaling

Bart.
--
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