All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@hp.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>, npiggin@suse.de, dgc@sgi.com
Subject: IO CPU affinity test results
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:14:22 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <47DA6C1E.8010000@hp.com> (raw)

Good morning Jens - 

I had two machines running the latest patches hang last night: 

o  2-way AMD64 - I inadvertently left the patched kernel running, and I was moving a ton of data (100+GB) back up over the net to this node. It hard hung (believe it or not) about 99% of the way through. Hard hang, wouldn't respond to anything.

o  4-way IA64 - I was performing a simple test: [mkfs / mount / untar linux sources / make allnoconfig / make -j 5 / umount] repeatedly switching rq_affinity to 0/1 between each run. After 22 passes it had a hard hang with rq_affinity set to 1.

Of course, there is no way of knowing if either hang had anything to do with the patches, but it seems a bit ominous as RQ=1 was set in both cases.

This same test worked fine for 30 passes on a 2-way AMD64 box, with the following results:

Part  RQ   MIN     AVG     MAX      Dev
----- --  ------  ------  ------  ------
 mkfs  0  41.656  41.862  42.086   0.141
 mkfs  1  41.618  41.909  42.270   0.192

untar  0  18.055  19.611  20.906   0.720
untar  1  18.523  19.905  21.988   0.738

 make  0  50.480  50.991  51.752   0.340
 make  1  49.819  50.442  51.000   0.292

 comb  0 110.433 112.464 114.176   0.932
 comb  1 110.694 112.256 114.683   0.948

 psys  0  10.28%  10.91%  11.29%   0.243
 psys  1  10.21%  11.05%  11.80%   0.350


All results are in seconds (as measured by Python's time.time()), except for the psys - which was the average of mpstat's %sys column over the life of the whole run. The mkfs part consisted of [mkfs -t ext2 ; sync ; sync], untar [mount; untar linux sources; umount; sync; sync], make [mount; make allnoconfig; make -j 3; umount; sync; sync], and comb is the combined times of the mkfs, untar and make parts. 

So, in a nutshell, we saw slightly better overall performance, but not conclusively, and we saw slightly elevated %system time to accomplish the task. 

On the 4-way, results were much worse: the final data shown before the system hung showed the rq=1 passes taking significantly longer, albeit at lower %system. I'm going to try the runs again, but I have a feeling that the latest "clean" patch based upon Nick's single call mechanism is a step backwards.

Alan

             reply	other threads:[~2008-03-14 12:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-03-14 12:14 Alan D. Brunelle [this message]
2008-03-14 12:23 ` IO CPU affinity test results Alan D. Brunelle
2008-03-14 12:37   ` Jens Axboe
2008-03-14 12:36 ` Jens Axboe
2008-03-14 13:05   ` Jens Axboe
2008-03-14 13:41     ` Alan D. Brunelle
2008-03-14 15:55       ` Alan D. Brunelle

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=47DA6C1E.8010000@hp.com \
    --to=alan.brunelle@hp.com \
    --cc=dgc@sgi.com \
    --cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=npiggin@suse.de \
    /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.