[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56058A34.8050900@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 10:53:56 -0700
From: Ashish Samant <ashish.samant@...cle.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
CC: Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
fuse-devel <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Srinivas Eeda <srinivas.eeda@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: fuse scalability part 1
On 09/25/2015 05:11 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Ashish Samant <ashish.samant@...cle.com> wrote:
>
>> We did some performance testing without these patches and with these patches
>> (with -o clone_fd option specified). We did 2 types of tests:
>>
>> 1. Throughput test : We did some parallel dd tests to read/write to FUSE
>> based database fs on a system with 8 numa nodes and 288 cpus. The
>> performance here is almost equal to the the per-numa patches we submitted a
>> while back.Please find results attached.
> Interesting. This means, that serving the request on a different NUMA
> node as the one where the request originated doesn't appear to make
> the performance much worse.
>
> Thanks,
> Miklos
Yes. The main performance gain is due to the reduced contention on one
spinlock(fc->lock) , especially with a large number of requests.
Splitting fc->fiq per cloned device will definitely improve performance
further and we can experiment further with per numa / cpu cloned device.
Thanks,
Ashish
--
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