linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 00/14] blk-mq-sched: improve sequential I/O performance(part 1)

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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:10:54 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
CC:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>, <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>,
        "Laurence Oberman" <loberman@...hat.com>,
        Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        Tom Nguyen <tom81094@...il.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>, Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 00/14] blk-mq-sched: improve sequential I/O
 performance(part 1)

On 10/10/2017 14:45, Ming Lei wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> All change in V6.2 is blk-mq/scsi-mq only, which shouldn't
> affect non SCSI_MQ, so I suggest you to compare the perf
> between deadline and mq-deadline, like Johannes mentioned.
>
>> >
>> > V6.2 series with default SCSI_MQ
>> > read, rw, write IOPS	
>> > 700K, 130K/128K, 640K
> If possible, could you provide your fio script and log on both
> non SCSI_MQ(deadline) and SCSI_MQ(mq_deadline)? Maybe some clues
> can be figured out.
>
> Also, I just put another patch on V6.2 branch, which may improve
> a bit too. You may try that in your test.
>
> 	https://github.com/ming1/linux/commit/e31e2eec46c9b5ae7cfa181e9b77adad2c6a97ce
>
> -- Ming .

Hi Ming Lei,

OK, I have tested deadline vs mq-deadline for your v6.2 branch and 
4.12-rc2. Unfortunately I don't have time now to test your experimental 
patches.

4.14-rc2 without default SCSI_MQ, deadline scheduler
read, rw, write IOPS	
920K, 115K/115K, 806K

4.14-rc2 with default SCSI_MQ, mq-deadline scheduler
read, rw, write IOPS	
280K, 99K/99K, 300K

V6.2 series without default SCSI_MQ, deadline scheduler
read, rw, write IOPS	
919K, 117K/117K, 806K

V6.2 series with default SCSI_MQ, mq-deadline scheduler
read, rw, write IOPS	
688K, 128K/128K, 630K

I think that the non-mq results look a bit more sensible - that is, 
consistent results.

Here's my script sample:
[global]
rw=rW
direct=1
ioengine=libaio
iodepth=2048
numjobs=1
bs=4k
;size=10240000m
;zero_buffers=1
group_reporting=1
group_reporting=1
;ioscheduler=noop
cpumask=0xff
;cpus_allowed=0-3
;gtod_reduce=1
;iodepth_batch=2
;iodepth_batch_complete=2
runtime=100000000
;thread
loops = 10000

[job1]
filename=/dev/sdb:
[job1]
filename=/dev/sdc:
[job1]
filename=/dev/sdd:
[job1]
filename=/dev/sde:
[job1]
filename=/dev/sdf:
[job1]
filename=/dev/sdg:

John