[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49y4wslp6z.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:38:44 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux-FSDevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] cfq: Increase default value of target_latency
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> writes:
> The existing CFQ default target_latency results in very poor performance
> for larger numbers of threads doing sequential reads. While this can be
> easily described as a tuning problem for users, it is one that is tricky
> to detect. This patch the default on the assumption that people with access
> to expensive fast storage also know how to tune their IO scheduler.
>
> The following is from tiobench run on a mid-range desktop with a single
> spinning disk.
>
> 3.16.0-rc1 3.16.0-rc1 3.0.0
> vanilla cfq600 vanilla
> Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-1 121.88 ( 0.00%) 121.60 ( -0.23%) 134.59 ( 10.42%)
> Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-2 101.99 ( 0.00%) 102.35 ( 0.36%) 122.59 ( 20.20%)
> Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-4 97.42 ( 0.00%) 99.71 ( 2.35%) 114.78 ( 17.82%)
> Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-8 83.39 ( 0.00%) 90.39 ( 8.39%) 100.14 ( 20.09%)
> Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-16 68.90 ( 0.00%) 77.29 ( 12.18%) 81.64 ( 18.50%)
Did you test any workloads other than this? Also, what normal workload
has 8 or more threads doing sequential reads? (That's an honest
question.)
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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