[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241101125659.GY14555@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:56:59 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kprateek.nayak@....com, wuyun.abel@...edance.com,
youssefesmat@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de, efault@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/24] sched/fair: Implement delayed dequeue
On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 08:47:15AM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:
> This one is causing a 10-20% performance hit on our filesystem tests.
>
> On 6.12-rc5 (so with the latest follow ons) we get:
>
> with DELAY_DEQUEUE the bandwidth is 510 MB/s
> with NO_DELAY_DEQUEUE the bandwidth is 590 MB/s
>
> The test is fio, something like this:
>
> taskset -c 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 fio --rw randwrite --bs 4k --runtime 1m --fsync 0 --iodepth 32 --direct 1 --ioengine libaio --numjobs 8 --size 30g --nrfiles 1 --loops 1 --name default --randrepeat 1 --time_based --group_reporting --directory /testfs
>
> In this case it's ext4, but I'm not sure it will be FS specific.
>
> I should have the machine and setup next week to poke further but I wanted
> to mention it now just in case any one has an "aha" moment.
>
> It seems to only effect these FS loads. Other perf tests are not showing any
> issues that I am aware of.
There's a number of reports -- mostly it seems to be a case of excessive
preemption hurting things.
What happens if you use:
schedtool -B -a 1-8 -e fio ....
Powered by blists - more mailing lists