From: bgamari@gmail.com (Ben Gamari)
Subject: [ltt-dev] [RFC PATCH] block: Fix bio merge induced high I/O latency
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:35:28 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1232591728.3782.6.camel@mercury.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <720e76b80901201222m72ae2e98l972c81ef5886a12e@mail.gmail.com>
I'm not sure if this will help, but I just completed another set of
benchmarks using Jens' patch and a variety of device parameters. Again,
I don't know if this will help anyone, but I figured it might help
quantify the differences between device parameters. Let me know if
there's any other benchmarking or testing that I can do. Thanks,
- Ben
mint maxt
==========================================================
queue_depth=1, slice_async_rq=1, quantum=1, patched
anticipatory 25 msec 4410 msec
cfq 27 msec 1466 msec
deadline 36 msec 10735 msec
noop 48 msec 37439 msec
==========================================================
queue_depth=1, slice_async_rq=1, quantum=4, patched
anticipatory 38 msec 3579 msec
cfq 35 msec 822 msec
deadline 37 msec 10072 msec
noop 32 msec 45535 msec
==========================================================
queue_depth=1, slice_async_rq=2, quantum=1, patched
anticipatory 33 msec 4480 msec
cfq 28 msec 353 msec
deadline 30 msec 6738 msec
noop 36 msec 39691 msec
==========================================================
queue_depth=1, slice_async_rq=2, quantum=4, patched
anticipatory 40 msec 4498 msec
cfq 35 msec 1395 msec
deadline 41 msec 6877 msec
noop 38 msec 46410 msec
==========================================================
queue_depth=31, slice_async_rq=1, quantum=1, patched
anticipatory 31 msec 6011 msec
cfq 36 msec 4575 msec
deadline 41 msec 18599 msec
noop 38 msec 46347 msec
==========================================================
queue_depth=31, slice_async_rq=2, quantum=1, patched
anticipatory 30 msec 9985 msec
cfq 33 msec 4200 msec
deadline 38 msec 22285 msec
noop 25 msec 40245 msec
==========================================================
queue_depth=31, slice_async_rq=2, quantum=4, patched
anticipatory 30 msec 12197 msec
cfq 30 msec 3457 msec
deadline 35 msec 18969 msec
noop 34 msec 42803 msec
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 15:22 -0500, Ben Gamari wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe at oracle.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >> * Jens Axboe (jens.axboe at oracle.com) wrote:
> >> Yes, ideally I should re-run those directly on the disk partitions.
> >
> > At least for comparison.
> >
>
> I just completed my own set of benchmarks using the fio job file
> Mathieu provided. This was on a 2.5 inch 7200 RPM SATA partition
> formatted as ext3. As you can see, I tested all of the available
> schedulers with both queuing enabled and disabled. I'll test the Jens'
> patch soon. Would a blktrace of the fio run help? Let me know if
> there's any other benchmarking or profiling that could be done.
> Thanks,
>
> - Ben
>
>
> mint maxt
> ==========================================================
> queue_depth=31:
> anticipatory 35 msec 11036 msec
> cfq 37 msec 3350 msec
> deadline 36 msec 18144 msec
> noop 39 msec 41512 msec
>
> ==========================================================
> queue_depth=1:
> anticipatory 45 msec 9561 msec
> cfq 28 msec 3974 msec
> deadline 47 msec 16802 msec
> noop 35 msec 38173 msec
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-22 2:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-17 0:44 [ltt-dev] [Regression] High latency when doing large I/O Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-01-17 16:26 ` [ltt-dev] [RFC PATCH] block: Fix bio merge induced high I/O latency Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-01-17 16:50 ` Leon Woestenberg
2009-01-17 17:15 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-01-17 19:04 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-18 21:12 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-01-18 21:27 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-01-19 18:26 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-20 2:10 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-01-20 7:37 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-20 12:28 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-20 14:22 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-01-20 14:24 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-20 15:42 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-01-20 23:06 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-01-20 23:27 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-01-21 0:25 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-01-21 4:38 ` Ben Gamari
2009-01-21 4:54 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-01-21 6:17 ` Ben Gamari
2009-01-22 22:59 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-01-23 3:21 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-01-23 4:03 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-02-10 3:36 ` [ltt-dev] [PATCH] mm fix page writeback accounting to fix oom condition under heavy I/O Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-02-10 3:55 ` Nick Piggin
2009-02-10 5:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-02-10 5:56 ` Nick Piggin
2009-02-10 6:12 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-02-02 2:08 ` [ltt-dev] [RFC PATCH] block: Fix bio merge induced high I/O latency Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-02-02 11:26 ` Jens Axboe
2009-02-03 0:46 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-01-20 13:45 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-01-20 20:22 ` Ben Gamari
2009-01-20 22:23 ` Ben Gamari
2009-01-20 23:05 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-01-22 2:35 ` Ben Gamari [this message]
2009-01-19 15:45 ` Nikanth K
2009-01-19 18:23 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-17 20:03 ` Ben Gamari
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1232591728.3782.6.camel@mercury.localdomain \
--to=bgamari@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox