From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Brent Baccala <cosine@freesoft.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: async I/O seems to be blocking on 2.6.15
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 08:26:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061107072606.GN19471@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <000001c701e9$a1435260$ff0da8c0@amr.corp.intel.com>
On Mon, Nov 06 2006, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote on Sunday, November 05, 2006 4:15 AM
> > On Fri, Nov 03 2006, Brent Baccala wrote:
> > > On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >
> > > >Try to time it (visual output of the app is not very telling, and it's
> > > >buffered) and then apply some profiling.
> > >
> > > OK, a little more info. I added gettimeofday() calls after each call
> > > to io_submit(), put the timevals in an array, and after everything was
> > > done computed the difference between each timeval and the program start
> > > time, as well as the deltas. I got this:
> > >
> > > 0: 0.080s
> > > 1: 0.086s 0.006s
> > > 2: 0.102s 0.016s
> > > 3: 0.111s 0.008s
> > > 4: 0.118s 0.007s
> > > 5: 0.134s 0.015s
> > > 6: 0.141s 0.006s
> > > 7: 0.148s 0.006s
> > > 8: 0.158s 0.009s
> > > 9: 0.164s 0.006s
> > > ...
> > > 96: 1.036s 0.007s
> > > 97: 1.044s 0.007s
> > > 98: 1.147s 0.102s
> > > 99: 1.155s 0.008s
> > >
> > > 98 appears to be an aberration. Perhaps three of the times on an
> > > average run are around a tenth of a second; all of the others are
> > > pretty steady at 7 or 8 microseconds. So, it's basically linear in
> > > its time consumption.
> > >
> > > Does 7 microseconds seem a bit excessive for an io_submit (and a
> > > gettimeofday)?
> >
> > I guess you mean miliseconds, not microseconds. 7 miliseconds seems way
> > too long. I repeated your test here, and the 100 submits take 97000
> > microseconds here - or 97 miliseconds. So that's a little less than 1
> > msec per io_submit. Still pretty big. You can experiment with oprofile
> > to profile where the kernel spends its time in that period.
>
>
> I've tried that myself too and see similar result. One thing to note is
> that I/O being submitted are pretty big at 1MB, so the vector list inside
> bio is going to be pretty long and it will take a while to construct that.
> Drop the size for each I/O to something like 4KB will significantly reduce
> the time. I haven't done the measurement whether the time to submit I/O
> grows linearly with respect to I/O size. Most likely it will. If it is
> not, then we might have a scaling problem (though I don't believe we have
> this problem).
True, it might not be all that unreasonable, just seemed a bit excessive
to me. If you submit smaller ios, you move the cost from bio_add_page()
to the merge logic in the driver. You'd have more allocations as well,
with bio's strung together instead of a bigger vector map.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-11-07 7:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-11-03 8:23 async I/O seems to be blocking on 2.6.15 Brent Baccala
2006-11-03 12:20 ` Jens Axboe
2006-11-03 15:58 ` Brent Baccala
2006-11-03 16:02 ` Jens Axboe
2006-11-03 17:09 ` Brent Baccala
2006-11-03 17:30 ` Brent Baccala
2006-11-05 12:15 ` Jens Axboe
2006-11-06 6:42 ` Brent Baccala
2006-11-06 10:43 ` Jens Axboe
2006-11-06 15:52 ` Phillip Susi
2006-11-06 16:02 ` Jens Axboe
2006-11-06 17:04 ` Phillip Susi
2006-11-06 17:10 ` Jens Axboe
2006-11-06 21:22 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-11-07 7:26 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2006-11-07 21:02 ` Bill Davidsen
2006-11-10 9:24 ` Jens Axboe
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-11-07 0:03 Brent Baccala
2006-11-07 0:24 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-11-07 7:29 ` Jens Axboe
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=20061107072606.GN19471@kernel.dk \
--to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=cosine@freesoft.org \
--cc=kenneth.w.chen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.