All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@oracle.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-aio@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] AIO: Don't plug the I/O queue in do_io_submit()
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:26:07 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EE7DF0F.4030506@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <x49sjkoi08u.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>

On 12/13/2011 04:18 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@oracle.com> writes:
> 
>> Asynchronous I/O latency to a solid-state disk greatly increased
>> between the 2.6.32 and 3.0 kernels. By removing the plug from
>> do_io_submit(), we observed a 34% improvement in the I/O latency.
>>
>> Unfortunately, at this level, we don't know if the request is to
>> a rotating disk or not.
> 
> I'm guessing I know the answer to this, but what workload were you
> testing, and can you provide more concrete evidence than "latency
> greatly increased?"

It is a piece of a larger industry-standard benchmark and you're
probably guessing correctly. The "greatly increased" latency was
actually slightly higher the improvement I get with this patch. So the
patch brought the latency nearly down to where it was before.

 I will try a microbenchmark to see if I get similar behavior, but I
wanted to throw this out here to get input.

I also failed to mention that the earlier kernel was a vendor kernel
(similar results on both Redhat and Oracle kernels). The 3.0 kernel is
much closer to mainline, but I haven't played with mainline kernels yet.
I expect similar results, but I can verify that.

> Also, have you tested the effects this has when
> using traditional storage for whatever your workload is?

That may be difficult, but hopefully, I can demonstrate it with a
simpler benchmark which I could test on traditional storage.

> I don't feel
> comfortable essentially reverting a performance patch without knowing
> the entire picture.  I will certainly do some testing on my end, too.

Understood. Thanks,

Shaggy

> Cheers,
> Jeff

  reply	other threads:[~2011-12-13 23:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-12-13 21:44 [PATCH] AIO: Don't plug the I/O queue in do_io_submit() Dave Kleikamp
2011-12-13 22:18 ` Jeff Moyer
2011-12-13 23:26   ` Dave Kleikamp [this message]
2011-12-14 20:58     ` Chris Mason
2011-12-16 14:45       ` Jeff Moyer
2011-12-15  1:09 ` Shaohua Li
2011-12-15 16:15   ` Jens Axboe
2011-12-15 16:40     ` Chris Mason

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=4EE7DF0F.4030506@oracle.com \
    --to=dave.kleikamp@oracle.com \
    --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
    --cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-aio@kvack.org \
    --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.