linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] target/user: Add daynmic growing data area featuresupport

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <58B5BDC2.3040300@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:13:22 -0600
From:   Mike Christie <mchristi@...hat.com>
To:     Xiubo Li <lixiubo@...s.chinamobile.com>,
        Andy Grover <agrover@...hat.com>, nab@...ux-iscsi.org,
        shli@...nel.org
Cc:     hch@....de, sheng@...ker.org, namei.unix@...il.com,
        bart.vanassche@...disk.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        target-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jianfei Hu <hujianfei@...s.chinamobile.com>,
        Venky Shankar <vshankar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] target/user: Add daynmic growing data area featuresupport

On 02/27/2017 07:22 PM, Xiubo Li wrote:
> Hi Mike
> 
> Thanks verrry much for your work and test cases.
> 
> 
>>>>> From: Xiubo Li <lixiubo@...s.chinamobile.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently for the TCMU, the ring buffer size is fixed to 64K cmd
>>>>> area + 1M data area, and this will be bottlenecks for high iops.
>>> Hi Xiubo, thanks for your work.
>>>
>>> daynmic -> dynamic
>>>
>>> Have you benchmarked this patch and determined what kind of iops
>>> improvement it allows? Do you see the data area reaching its
>>> fully-allocated size?
>>>
>> I tested this patch with Venky's tcmu-runner rbd aio patches, with one
>> 10 gig iscsi session, and for pretty basic fio direct io (64 -256K
>> read/writes with a queue depth of 64 numjobs between 1 and 4) tests read
>> throughput goes from about 80 to 500 MB/s.
> Looks nice.
> 
>> Write throughput is pretty
>> low at around 150 MB/s.
> What's the original write throughput without this patch? Is it also
> around 80 MB/s ?

It is around 20-30 MB/s. Same fio args except using --rw=write.