From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [writeback] 6903673566d: +2.5% fileio.requests_per_sec
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 13:12:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140411051204.GB22353@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140410192751.GE8060@quack.suse.cz>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5070 bytes --]
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 09:27:51PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 10-04-14 21:05:52, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 08:41:37PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Here are the changed stats before/after the patchset:
> Thanks for gathering the numbers!
>
> > v3.14-rc8 ea87e2e7e0905325c58cf5643
> > --------------- -------------------------
> > 58.98 ~102% -73.2% 15.78 snb-drag/sysbench/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-ext4-64G-1024-rndwr-sync
> > 2215.64 ~61% -69.2% 682.57 snb-drag/sysbench/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-ext4-64G-1024-seqrewr-sync
> > 185.22 ~132% -93.6% 11.80 snb-drag/sysbench/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-xfs-64G-1024-rndwr-sync
> > 2459.84 ~67% -71.1% 710.15 TOTAL fileio.request_latency_max_ms
> >
> > v3.14-rc8 ea87e2e7e0905325c58cf5643
> > --------------- -------------------------
> > 6251 ~ 0% +4.0% 6503 snb-drag/sysbench/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-ext4-64G-1024-seqrewr-sync
> > 6532 ~ 0% +3.2% 6737 ~ 0% snb-drag/sysbench/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-xfs-64G-1024-seqrewr-sync
> > 6444 ~ 0% +1.7% 6554 ~ 0% snb-drag/sysbench/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-xfs-64G-1024-seqwr-sync
> > 19227 ~ 0% +3.0% 19795 TOTAL fileio.requests_per_sec
> >
> So fileio got better latency and higher requests per second. That's good.
> ...
>
> > v3.14-rc8 ea87e2e7e0905325c58cf5643
> > --------------- -------------------------
> > 397285 ~ 0% -6.9% 369872 ~ 0% lkp-st02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-xfs-10dd
> > 359312 ~ 0% -5.5% 339685 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-xfs-100dd
> > 404981 ~ 0% -4.5% 386775 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-xfs-10dd
> > 1161579 ~ 0% -5.6% 1096334 TOTAL iostat.md0.wkB/s
> So dd writing tests got lower throughput reported by iostat. I'll try to
> have a look whether I can reproduce that. BTW: Does that also correspond to
> longer time-to-completion of the dd test?
Nope, there are no noticeable changes for time.elapsed_time:
v3.14-rc8 ea87e2e7e0905325c58cf5643
--------------- -------------------------
601.99 ~ 0% +0.0% 602.07 ~ 0% lkp-st02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-xfs-10dd
630.92 ~ 0% -0.9% 625.24 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-JBOD-cfq-ext4-100dd
615.98 ~ 0% -0.2% 614.74 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-JBOD-cfq-ext4-10dd
610.58 ~ 0% -0.1% 609.92 ~ 0% lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-JBOD-cfq-ext4-1dd
608.90 ~ 0% +0.0% 609.09 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-JBOD-cfq-xfs-100dd
604.46 ~ 0% +0.0% 604.66 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-JBOD-cfq-xfs-10dd
603.67 ~ 0% +0.0% 603.70 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-JBOD-cfq-xfs-1dd
606.65 ~ 0% +0.0% 606.93 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-ext4-100dd
606.31 ~ 0% +0.0% 606.49 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-ext4-10dd
602.97 ~ 0% -0.2% 601.89 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-ext4-1dd
603.92 ~ 0% -0.2% 603.01 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-xfs-100dd
602.66 ~ 0% -0.0% 602.63 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-xfs-10dd
602.19 ~ 0% +0.2% 603.52 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-xfs-1dd
>
> > v3.14-rc8 ea87e2e7e0905325c58cf5643
> > --------------- -------------------------
> > 1.2e+08 ~ 0% +4.0% 1.249e+08 snb-drag/sysbench/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-ext4-64G-1024-seqrewr-sync
> > 1.254e+08 ~ 0% +3.1% 1.294e+08 ~ 0% snb-drag/sysbench/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-xfs-64G-1024-seqrewr-sync
> > 1.237e+08 ~ 0% +1.7% 1.259e+08 ~ 0% snb-drag/sysbench/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-xfs-64G-1024-seqwr-sync
> > 3.692e+08 ~ 0% +3.0% 3.801e+08 TOTAL time.file_system_outputs
> What's this measuring?
It corresponds to the "File system outputs" line in the below output.
It should be the number of dirtied pages.
% /usr/bin/time -v sleep 1
Command being timed: "sleep 1"
User time (seconds): 0.00
System time (seconds): 0.00
Percent of CPU this job got: 0%
Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 0:01.00
Average shared text size (kbytes): 0
Average unshared data size (kbytes): 0
Average stack size (kbytes): 0
Average total size (kbytes): 0
Maximum resident set size (kbytes): 2608
Average resident set size (kbytes): 0
Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 0
Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 213
Voluntary context switches: 2
Involuntary context switches: 1
Swaps: 0
File system inputs: 0
File system outputs: 0
Socket messages sent: 0
Socket messages received: 0
Signals delivered: 0
Page size (bytes): 4096
Exit status: 0
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, lkp@01.org
Subject: Re: [writeback] 6903673566d: +2.5% fileio.requests_per_sec
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 13:12:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140411051204.GB22353@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140410192751.GE8060@quack.suse.cz>
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 09:27:51PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 10-04-14 21:05:52, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 08:41:37PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Here are the changed stats before/after the patchset:
> Thanks for gathering the numbers!
>
> > v3.14-rc8 ea87e2e7e0905325c58cf5643
> > --------------- -------------------------
> > 58.98 ~102% -73.2% 15.78 snb-drag/sysbench/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-ext4-64G-1024-rndwr-sync
> > 2215.64 ~61% -69.2% 682.57 snb-drag/sysbench/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-ext4-64G-1024-seqrewr-sync
> > 185.22 ~132% -93.6% 11.80 snb-drag/sysbench/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-xfs-64G-1024-rndwr-sync
> > 2459.84 ~67% -71.1% 710.15 TOTAL fileio.request_latency_max_ms
> >
> > v3.14-rc8 ea87e2e7e0905325c58cf5643
> > --------------- -------------------------
> > 6251 ~ 0% +4.0% 6503 snb-drag/sysbench/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-ext4-64G-1024-seqrewr-sync
> > 6532 ~ 0% +3.2% 6737 ~ 0% snb-drag/sysbench/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-xfs-64G-1024-seqrewr-sync
> > 6444 ~ 0% +1.7% 6554 ~ 0% snb-drag/sysbench/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-xfs-64G-1024-seqwr-sync
> > 19227 ~ 0% +3.0% 19795 TOTAL fileio.requests_per_sec
> >
> So fileio got better latency and higher requests per second. That's good.
> ...
>
> > v3.14-rc8 ea87e2e7e0905325c58cf5643
> > --------------- -------------------------
> > 397285 ~ 0% -6.9% 369872 ~ 0% lkp-st02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-xfs-10dd
> > 359312 ~ 0% -5.5% 339685 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-xfs-100dd
> > 404981 ~ 0% -4.5% 386775 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-xfs-10dd
> > 1161579 ~ 0% -5.6% 1096334 TOTAL iostat.md0.wkB/s
> So dd writing tests got lower throughput reported by iostat. I'll try to
> have a look whether I can reproduce that. BTW: Does that also correspond to
> longer time-to-completion of the dd test?
Nope, there are no noticeable changes for time.elapsed_time:
v3.14-rc8 ea87e2e7e0905325c58cf5643
--------------- -------------------------
601.99 ~ 0% +0.0% 602.07 ~ 0% lkp-st02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-xfs-10dd
630.92 ~ 0% -0.9% 625.24 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-JBOD-cfq-ext4-100dd
615.98 ~ 0% -0.2% 614.74 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-JBOD-cfq-ext4-10dd
610.58 ~ 0% -0.1% 609.92 ~ 0% lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-JBOD-cfq-ext4-1dd
608.90 ~ 0% +0.0% 609.09 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-JBOD-cfq-xfs-100dd
604.46 ~ 0% +0.0% 604.66 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-JBOD-cfq-xfs-10dd
603.67 ~ 0% +0.0% 603.70 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-JBOD-cfq-xfs-1dd
606.65 ~ 0% +0.0% 606.93 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-ext4-100dd
606.31 ~ 0% +0.0% 606.49 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-ext4-10dd
602.97 ~ 0% -0.2% 601.89 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-ext4-1dd
603.92 ~ 0% -0.2% 603.01 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-xfs-100dd
602.66 ~ 0% -0.0% 602.63 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-xfs-10dd
602.19 ~ 0% +0.2% 603.52 lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-RAID5-cfq-xfs-1dd
>
> > v3.14-rc8 ea87e2e7e0905325c58cf5643
> > --------------- -------------------------
> > 1.2e+08 ~ 0% +4.0% 1.249e+08 snb-drag/sysbench/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-ext4-64G-1024-seqrewr-sync
> > 1.254e+08 ~ 0% +3.1% 1.294e+08 ~ 0% snb-drag/sysbench/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-xfs-64G-1024-seqrewr-sync
> > 1.237e+08 ~ 0% +1.7% 1.259e+08 ~ 0% snb-drag/sysbench/fileio/600s-100%-1HDD-xfs-64G-1024-seqwr-sync
> > 3.692e+08 ~ 0% +3.0% 3.801e+08 TOTAL time.file_system_outputs
> What's this measuring?
It corresponds to the "File system outputs" line in the below output.
It should be the number of dirtied pages.
% /usr/bin/time -v sleep 1
Command being timed: "sleep 1"
User time (seconds): 0.00
System time (seconds): 0.00
Percent of CPU this job got: 0%
Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 0:01.00
Average shared text size (kbytes): 0
Average unshared data size (kbytes): 0
Average stack size (kbytes): 0
Average total size (kbytes): 0
Maximum resident set size (kbytes): 2608
Average resident set size (kbytes): 0
Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 0
Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 213
Voluntary context switches: 2
Involuntary context switches: 1
Swaps: 0
File system inputs: 0
File system outputs: 0
Socket messages sent: 0
Socket messages received: 0
Signals delivered: 0
Page size (bytes): 4096
Exit status: 0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-11 5:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-10 12:41 [writeback] 6903673566d: +2.5% fileio.requests_per_sec Fengguang Wu
2014-04-10 12:41 ` Fengguang Wu
2014-04-10 13:05 ` Fengguang Wu
2014-04-10 13:05 ` Fengguang Wu
2014-04-10 19:27 ` Jan Kara
2014-04-10 19:27 ` Jan Kara
2014-04-11 5:12 ` Fengguang Wu [this message]
2014-04-11 5:12 ` Fengguang Wu
2014-04-10 13:08 ` Fengguang Wu
2014-04-10 13:08 ` Fengguang Wu
2014-04-10 13:17 ` Fengguang Wu
2014-04-10 13:17 ` Fengguang Wu
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=20140411051204.GB22353@localhost \
--to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.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.