Re: cfq performance gap

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jens Axboe wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08 2006, Avantika Mathur wrote:
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 13:05 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Thu, Dec 07 2006, Avantika Mathur wrote:
Hi Jens,
(you probably noticed now, but the [email protected] email is no longer
valid)
I saw that, thanks!
I've noticed a performance gap between the cfq scheduler and other io
schedulers when running the rawio benchmark.

The benchmark workload is 16 processes running 4k random reads.

Is this performance gap a known issue?
CFQ could be a little slower at this benchmark, but your results are
much worse than I would expect. What is the queueing depth of sda? How
are you invoking rawio?
I am running rawio with the following options:
rawread -p 16 -m 1 -d 1 -x -z -t 0 -s 4096

The queue depth on sda is 4.
Your runtime is very low, how does it look if you allow the test to run
for much longer? 30MiB/sec random read bandwidth seems very high, I'm
wondering what exactly is being tested here.
rawio is actually performing sequential reads, but I don't believe it is
purely sequential with the multiple processes.
I am currently running the test with longer runtimes and will post
results once it is complete.
I've also attached the rawio source.
It's certainly the slice and idling hurting here. But at the same time,
I don't really think your test case is very interesting. The test area
is very small and you have 16 threads trying to read the same thing,
optimizing for that would be silly as I don't think it has much real
world relevance.

Could a database have similar workload to this test?
That said, I might add some logic to detect when we can cheaply switch
queues instead of waiting for a new request from the same queue.
Averaging slice times over a period of time instead of 1:1 with that
logic, should help cases like this while still being fair.
Thank you for looking at this issue.
I've found an IBM/SUSE bugzilla bug for the same performance gap on rawio. There was a fix for this bug included in SLES10-RC1, do you know why it was not added in mainline?
Thanks again,
Avantika Mathur
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux