| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20180621011656.GA15427@ming.t460p>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:17:05 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: Gi-Oh Kim <gi-oh.kim@...fitbricks.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, hch@...radead.org,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, kent.overstreet@...il.com,
dsterba@...e.cz, ying.huang@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, tytso@....edu,
darrick.wong@...cle.com, colyli@...e.de, fdmanana@...il.com,
rdunlap@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 00/30] block: support multipage bvec
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 02:59:19PM +0200, Gi-Oh Kim wrote:
> >
> > - bio size can be increased and it should improve some high-bandwidth IO
> > case in theory[4].
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to report your patch set works well on my system based on v4.14.48.
> I thought the multipage bvec could improve the performance of my system.
> (FYI, my system has v4.14.48 and provides KVM-base virtualization service.)
Thanks for your test!
>
> So I did back-porting your patches to v4.14.48.
> It has done without any serious problem.
> I only needed to cherry-pick "blk-merge: compute
> bio->bi_seg_front_size efficiently" and
> "block: move bio_alloc_pages() to bcache" patches before back-porting
> to prevent conflicts.
Not sure I understand your point, you have to backport all patches.
> And I ran my own test-suit for checking features of md and RAID1 layer.
> There was no problem. All test cases passed.
> (If you want, I will send you the back-ported patches.)
>
> Then I did two performance test as following.
> To say the conclusion first, I failed to show performance improvement
> of the patch set.
> Of course, my test cases would not be suitable to test your patch set.
> Or maybe I did test wrong.
> Please inform me which tools are suitable, then I will try them.
>
> 1. fio
>
> First I ran fio with null device to check the performance of the block-layer.
> I am not sure those test is suitable to show the performance
> improvement or degradation.
> Nevertheless there was a little (-6%) performance degradation.
>
> If it is not much trouble to you, please review my options for fio and
> inform me if I used wrong or incorrect options.
> Then I will run the test again.
>
> 1.1 Following is my options for fio.
>
> gkim@ib1:~/pb-ltp/benchmark/fio$ cat go_local.sh
> #!/bin/bash
> echo "fio start : $(date)"
> echo "kernel info : $(uname -a)"
> echo "fio version : $(fio --version)"
>
> # set "none" io-scheduler
> modprobe -r null_blk
> modprobe null_blk
> echo "none" > /sys/block/nullb0/queue/scheduler
>
> FIO_OPTION="--direct=1 --rw=randrw:2 --time_based=1 --group_reporting \
> --ioengine=libaio --iodepth=64 --name=fiotest --numjobs=8 \
> --bssplit=512/20:1k/16:2k/9:4k/12:8k/19:16k/10:32k/8:64k/4 \
> --fadvise_hint=0 --iodepth_batch_submit=64
> --iodepth_batch_complete=64"
> # fio test null_blk device, so it is not necessary to run long.
> fio $FIO_OPTION --filename=/dev/nullb0 --runtime=600
>
> 1.2 Following is the result before porting.
>
> fio start : Mon Jun 11 04:30:01 CEST 2018
> kernel info : Linux ib1 4.14.48-1-pserver
> #4.14.48-1.1+feature+daily+update+20180607.0857+1bbde0b~deb8 SMP
> x86_64 GNU/Linux
> fio version : fio-2.2.10
> fiotest: (g=0): rw=randrw, bs=512-64K/512-64K/512-64K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64
> ...
> fio-2.2.10
> Starting 8 processes
>
> fiotest: (groupid=0, jobs=8): err= 0: pid=1655: Mon Jun 11 04:40:02 2018
> read : io=7133.2GB, bw=12174MB/s, iops=1342.1K, runt=600001msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=15750, avg=123.78, stdev=153.79
> clat (usec): min=0, max=15758, avg=24.70, stdev=77.93
> lat (usec): min=2, max=15782, avg=148.49, stdev=167.54
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 0], 5.00th=[ 1], 10.00th=[ 1], 20.00th=[ 1],
> | 30.00th=[ 2], 40.00th=[ 2], 50.00th=[ 2], 60.00th=[ 6],
> | 70.00th=[ 22], 80.00th=[ 36], 90.00th=[ 72], 95.00th=[ 107],
> | 99.00th=[ 173], 99.50th=[ 203], 99.90th=[ 932], 99.95th=[ 1416],
> | 99.99th=[ 2960]
> bw (MB /s): min= 1096, max= 2147, per=12.51%, avg=1522.69, stdev=253.89
> write: io=7131.3GB, bw=12171MB/s, iops=1343.6K, runt=600001msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=15751, avg=124.73, stdev=154.11
> clat (usec): min=0, max=15758, avg=24.69, stdev=77.84
> lat (usec): min=2, max=15780, avg=149.43, stdev=167.82
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 0], 5.00th=[ 1], 10.00th=[ 1], 20.00th=[ 1],
> | 30.00th=[ 2], 40.00th=[ 2], 50.00th=[ 2], 60.00th=[ 6],
> | 70.00th=[ 22], 80.00th=[ 36], 90.00th=[ 72], 95.00th=[ 107],
> | 99.00th=[ 173], 99.50th=[ 203], 99.90th=[ 932], 99.95th=[ 1416],
> | 99.99th=[ 2960]
> bw (MB /s): min= 1080, max= 2121, per=12.51%, avg=1522.33, stdev=253.96
> lat (usec) : 2=21.63%, 4=37.80%, 10=2.12%, 20=6.43%, 50=16.70%
> lat (usec) : 100=8.86%, 250=6.07%, 500=0.17%, 750=0.08%, 1000=0.05%
> lat (msec) : 2=0.06%, 4=0.02%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
> cpu : usr=22.39%, sys=64.19%, ctx=15425825, majf=0, minf=97
> IO depths : 1=1.8%, 2=1.8%, 4=8.8%, 8=14.4%, 16=12.3%, 32=41.7%, >=64=19.3%
> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=5.8%, 8=9.7%, 16=15.0%, 32=18.0%, 64=51.5%, >=64=0.0%
> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%, 64=100.0%, >=64=0.0%
> issued : total=r=805764385/w=806127393/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0,
> drop=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=64
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=7133.2GB, aggrb=12174MB/s, minb=12174MB/s, maxb=12174MB/s,
> mint=600001msec, maxt=600001msec
> WRITE: io=7131.3GB, aggrb=12171MB/s, minb=12171MB/s, maxb=12171MB/s,
> mint=600001msec, maxt=600001msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> nullb0: ios=442461761/442546060, merge=363197836/363473703,
> ticks=12280990/12452480, in_queue=2740, util=0.43%
>
> 1.3 Following is the result after porting.
>
> fio start : Fri Jun 15 12:42:47 CEST 2018
> kernel info : Linux ib1 4.14.48-1-pserver-mpbvec+ #12 SMP Fri Jun 15
> 12:21:36 CEST 2018 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> fio version : fio-2.2.10
> fiotest: (g=0): rw=randrw, bs=512-64K/512-64K/512-64K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64
> ...
> fio-2.2.10
> Starting 8 processes
> Jobs: 4 (f=0): [m(1),_(2),m(1),_(1),m(2),_(1)] [100.0% done]
> [8430MB/8444MB/0KB /s] [961K/963K/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> fiotest: (groupid=0, jobs=8): err= 0: pid=14096: Fri Jun 15 12:52:48 2018
> read : io=6633.8GB, bw=11322MB/s, iops=1246.9K, runt=600005msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=16939, avg=135.34, stdev=156.23
> clat (usec): min=0, max=16947, avg=26.10, stdev=78.50
> lat (usec): min=2, max=16957, avg=161.45, stdev=168.88
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 0], 5.00th=[ 1], 10.00th=[ 1], 20.00th=[ 1],
> | 30.00th=[ 2], 40.00th=[ 2], 50.00th=[ 2], 60.00th=[ 5],
> | 70.00th=[ 23], 80.00th=[ 37], 90.00th=[ 79], 95.00th=[ 115],
> | 99.00th=[ 181], 99.50th=[ 211], 99.90th=[ 948], 99.95th=[ 1416],
> | 99.99th=[ 2864]
> bw (MB /s): min= 1106, max= 2031, per=12.51%, avg=1416.05, stdev=201.81
> write: io=6631.1GB, bw=11318MB/s, iops=1247.5K, runt=600005msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=16938, avg=136.48, stdev=156.54
> clat (usec): min=0, max=16947, avg=26.08, stdev=78.43
> lat (usec): min=2, max=16957, avg=162.58, stdev=169.15
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 0], 5.00th=[ 1], 10.00th=[ 1], 20.00th=[ 1],
> | 30.00th=[ 2], 40.00th=[ 2], 50.00th=[ 2], 60.00th=[ 5],
> | 70.00th=[ 23], 80.00th=[ 37], 90.00th=[ 79], 95.00th=[ 115],
> | 99.00th=[ 181], 99.50th=[ 211], 99.90th=[ 948], 99.95th=[ 1416],
> | 99.99th=[ 2864]
> bw (MB /s): min= 1084, max= 2044, per=12.51%, avg=1415.67, stdev=201.93
> lat (usec) : 2=20.98%, 4=38.82%, 10=2.15%, 20=5.08%, 50=16.91%
> lat (usec) : 100=8.75%, 250=6.91%, 500=0.19%, 750=0.09%, 1000=0.05%
> lat (msec) : 2=0.07%, 4=0.02%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
> cpu : usr=21.02%, sys=65.53%, ctx=15321661, majf=0, minf=78
> IO depths : 1=1.9%, 2=1.9%, 4=9.5%, 8=13.6%, 16=11.2%, 32=42.1%, >=64=19.9%
> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=6.3%, 8=10.1%, 16=14.1%, 32=18.2%,
> 64=51.3%, >=64=0.0%
> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%, 64=100.0%, >=64=0.0%
> issued : total=r=748120019/w=748454509/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0,
> drop=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=64
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=6633.8GB, aggrb=11322MB/s, minb=11322MB/s, maxb=11322MB/s,
> mint=600005msec, maxt=600005msec
> WRITE: io=6631.1GB, aggrb=11318MB/s, minb=11318MB/s, maxb=11318MB/s,
> mint=600005msec, maxt=600005msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> nullb0: ios=410911387/410974086, merge=337127604/337396176,
> ticks=12482050/12662790, in_queue=1780, util=0.27%
>
>
> 2. Unixbench
>
> Second I rand Unixbench to check general performance.
> I think there is no difference before and after porting the patches.
> Unixbench might not be suitable to check the performance improvement
> of the block layer.
> If you inform me which tools is suitable, I will try it on my system.
>
> 2.1 Following is the result before porting.
>
> BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3)
>
> System: ib1: GNU/Linux
> OS: GNU/Linux -- 4.14.48-1-pserver --
> #4.14.48-1.1+feature+daily+update+20180607.0857+1bbde0b~deb8 SMP
> Machine: x86_64 (unknown)
> Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8")
> CPU 0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 v5 @ 3.50GHz (7008.0 bogomips)
> Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext,
> SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
> CPU 1: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 v5 @ 3.50GHz (7008.0 bogomips)
> Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext,
> SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
> CPU 2: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 v5 @ 3.50GHz (7008.0 bogomips)
> Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext,
> SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
> CPU 3: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 v5 @ 3.50GHz (7008.0 bogomips)
> Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext,
> SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
> CPU 4: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 v5 @ 3.50GHz (7008.0 bogomips)
> Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext,
> SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
> CPU 5: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 v5 @ 3.50GHz (7008.0 bogomips)
> Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext,
> SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
> CPU 6: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 v5 @ 3.50GHz (7008.0 bogomips)
> Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext,
> SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
> CPU 7: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 v5 @ 3.50GHz (7008.0 bogomips)
> Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext,
> SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
> 05:00:01 up 3 days, 16:20, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.11,
> 1.11; runlevel 2018-06-07
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Benchmark Run: Mon Jun 11 2018 05:00:01 - 05:28:54
> 8 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
>
> Dhrystone 2 using register variables 47158867.7 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
> Double-Precision Whetstone 3878.8 MWIPS (15.2 s, 7 samples)
> Execl Throughput 9203.9 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1490834.8 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 388784.2 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 3744780.2 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> Pipe Throughput 2682620.1 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
> Pipe-based Context Switching 263786.5 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
> Process Creation 19674.0 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 16121.5 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 5623.5 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
> System Call Overhead 4068991.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
>
> System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
> Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 47158867.7 4041.0
> Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 3878.8 705.2
> Execl Throughput 43.0 9203.9 2140.4
> File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 1490834.8 3764.7
> File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 388784.2 2349.1
> File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 3744780.2 6456.5
> Pipe Throughput 12440.0 2682620.1 2156.4
> Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 263786.5 659.5
> Process Creation 126.0 19674.0 1561.4
> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 16121.5 3802.2
> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 5623.5 9372.5
> System Call Overhead 15000.0 4068991.3 2712.7
> ========
> System Benchmarks Index Score 2547.7
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Benchmark Run: Mon Jun 11 2018 05:28:54 - 05:57:07
> 8 CPUs in system; running 8 parallel copies of tests
>
> Dhrystone 2 using register variables 234727639.9 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
> Double-Precision Whetstone 35350.9 MWIPS (10.7 s, 7 samples)
> Execl Throughput 43811.3 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1401373.1 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 366033.9 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 4360829.6 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> Pipe Throughput 12875165.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
> Pipe-based Context Switching 2431725.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
> Process Creation 97360.8 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 58879.6 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 9232.5 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
> System Call Overhead 9497958.7 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
>
> System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
> Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 234727639.9 20113.8
> Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 35350.9 6427.4
> Execl Throughput 43.0 43811.3 10188.7
> File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 1401373.1 3538.8
> File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 366033.9 2211.7
> File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 4360829.6 7518.7
> Pipe Throughput 12440.0 12875165.6 10349.8
> Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 2431725.6 6079.3
> Process Creation 126.0 97360.8 7727.0
> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 58879.6 13886.7
> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 9232.5 15387.5
> System Call Overhead 15000.0 9497958.7 6332.0
> ========
> System Benchmarks Index Score 7803.5
>
>
> 2.2 Following is the result after porting.
>
> BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3)
>
> System: ib1: GNU/Linux
> OS: GNU/Linux -- 4.14.48-1-pserver-mpbvec+ -- #12 SMP Fri Jun 15
> 12:21:36 CEST 2018
> Machine: x86_64 (unknown)
> Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8")
> CPU 0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 v5 @ 3.50GHz (7008.0 bogomips)
> Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext,
> SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
> CPU 1: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 v5 @ 3.50GHz (7008.0 bogomips)
> Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext,
> SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
> CPU 2: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 v5 @ 3.50GHz (7008.0 bogomips)
> Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext,
> SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
> CPU 3: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 v5 @ 3.50GHz (7008.0 bogomips)
> Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext,
> SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
> CPU 4: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 v5 @ 3.50GHz (7008.0 bogomips)
> Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext,
> SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
> CPU 5: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 v5 @ 3.50GHz (7008.0 bogomips)
> Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext,
> SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
> CPU 6: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 v5 @ 3.50GHz (7008.0 bogomips)
> Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext,
> SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
> CPU 7: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 v5 @ 3.50GHz (7008.0 bogomips)
> Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext,
> SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
> 13:16:11 up 50 min, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 1.40, 3.46;
> runlevel 2018-06-15
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Benchmark Run: Fri Jun 15 2018 13:16:11 - 13:45:04
> 8 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
>
> Dhrystone 2 using register variables 47103754.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
> Double-Precision Whetstone 3886.3 MWIPS (15.1 s, 7 samples)
> Execl Throughput 8965.0 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1510285.9 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 395196.9 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 3802788.0 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> Pipe Throughput 2670169.1 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
> Pipe-based Context Switching 275093.8 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
> Process Creation 19707.1 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 16046.8 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 5600.8 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
> System Call Overhead 4104142.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
>
> System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
> Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 47103754.6 4036.3
> Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 3886.3 706.6
> Execl Throughput 43.0 8965.0 2084.9
> File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 1510285.9 3813.9
> File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 395196.9 2387.9
> File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 3802788.0 6556.5
> Pipe Throughput 12440.0 2670169.1 2146.4
> Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 275093.8 687.7
> Process Creation 126.0 19707.1 1564.1
> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 16046.8 3784.6
> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 5600.8 9334.6
> System Call Overhead 15000.0 4104142.0 2736.1
> ========
> System Benchmarks Index Score 2560.0
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Benchmark Run: Fri Jun 15 2018 13:45:04 - 14:13:17
> 8 CPUs in system; running 8 parallel copies of tests
>
> Dhrystone 2 using register variables 237271982.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
> Double-Precision Whetstone 35186.8 MWIPS (10.7 s, 7 samples)
> Execl Throughput 42557.8 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1403922.0 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 367436.5 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 4380468.3 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> Pipe Throughput 12872664.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
> Pipe-based Context Switching 2451404.5 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
> Process Creation 97788.2 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 58505.9 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 9195.4 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
> System Call Overhead 9467372.2 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
>
> System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
> Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 237271982.6 20331.8
> Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 35186.8 6397.6
> Execl Throughput 43.0 42557.8 9897.2
> File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 1403922.0 3545.3
> File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 367436.5 2220.2
> File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 4380468.3 7552.5
> Pipe Throughput 12440.0 12872664.6 10347.8
> Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 2451404.5 6128.5
> Process Creation 126.0 97788.2 7761.0
> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 58505.9 13798.6
> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 9195.4 15325.6
> System Call Overhead 15000.0 9467372.2 6311.6
> ========
> System Benchmarks Index Score 7794.3
At least now, BIO_MAX_PAGES can be fixed as 256 in case of CONFIG_THP_SWAP,
otherwise 2 pages may be allocated for holding the bvec table, so tests
in case of THP_SWAP may be improved.
Also filesystem may support IO to/from THP, and multipage bvec should
improve this case too.
Long term, there is opportunity to improve fs code by only allocating
'nr_segment' of bvec table, instead of 'nr_page' of bvec table because
physically contiguous pages are often allocated from mm for same
process.
So this patchset is just a start, and at the current stage, I am
focusing on making it stable since it is the correct approach to
only store the multipage segment instead of each pages.
Thanks again for your test.
Thanks,
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists