[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e59466b1-c3b7-495f-b10d-77438c2f07d8@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 10:07:31 +0530
From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@....com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, nikunj@....com, vbabka@...e.cz, david@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, yuzhao@...gle.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz,
joshdon@...gle.com, clm@...a.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Large folios in block buffered IO path
On 28-Nov-24 9:52 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 09:31:50AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>> However a point of concern is that FIO bandwidth comes down drastically
>> after the change.
>>
>> default inode_lock-fix
>> rw=30%
>> Instance 1 r=55.7GiB/s,w=23.9GiB/s r=9616MiB/s,w=4121MiB/s
>> Instance 2 r=38.5GiB/s,w=16.5GiB/s r=8482MiB/s,w=3635MiB/s
>> Instance 3 r=37.5GiB/s,w=16.1GiB/s r=8609MiB/s,w=3690MiB/s
>> Instance 4 r=37.4GiB/s,w=16.0GiB/s r=8486MiB/s,w=3637MiB/s
>
> Something this dramatic usually only happens when you enable a debugging
> option. Can you recheck that you're running both A and B with the same
> debugging options both compiled in, and enabled?
It is the same kernel tree with and w/o Mateusz's inode_lock changes to
block/fops.c. I see the config remains same for both the builds.
Let me get a run for both base and patched case w/o running perf lock
contention to check if that makes a difference.
Regards,
Bharata.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists