From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/26] AIO performance improvements/cleanups, v2 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:35:53 +0100 Message-ID: <50CAD6D9.5070703@fusionio.com> References: <1354568322-29029-1-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> <20121213211808.GJ25017@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Kent Overstreet , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-aio@kvack.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "zab@redhat.com" , "bcrl@kvack.org" , "jmoyer@redhat.com" , "viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" To: Jack Wang Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 2012-12-14 03:26, Jack Wang wrote: > 2012/12/14 Jens Axboe : >> On Mon, Dec 03 2012, Kent Overstreet wrote: >>> Last posting: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.aio.general/3169 >>> >>> Changes since the last posting should all be noted in the individual >>> patch descriptions. >>> >>> * Zach pointed out the aio_read_evt() patch was calling functions that >>> could sleep in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state, that patch is rewritten. >>> * Ben pointed out some synchronize_rcu() usage was problematic, >>> converted it to call_rcu() >>> * The flush_dcache_page() patch is new >>> * Changed the "use cancellation list lazily" patch so as to remove >>> ki_flags from struct kiocb. >> >> Kent, I ran a few tests, and the below patches still don't seem as fast >> as the approach I took. To keep it fair, I used your aio branch and >> applied by dio speedups too. As a sanity check, I ran with your branch >> alone as well. The quick results below - kaio is kent-aio, just your >> branch. kaio-dio is with the direct IO speedups too. jaio is my branch, >> which already has the dio changes too. >> >> Devices Branch IOPS >> 1 kaio ~915K >> 1 kaio-dio ~930K >> 1 jaio ~1220K >> 6 kaio ~3050K >> 6 kaio-dio ~3080K >> 6 jaio 3500K >> >> The box runs out of CPU driving power, which is why it doesn't scale >> linearly, otherwise I know that jaio at least does. It's basically >> completion limited for the 6 device test at the moment. >> >> I'll run some profiling tomorrow morning and get you some better >> results. Just thought I'd share these at least. >> >> -- >> Jens Axboe >> > > A really good performance, woo. > > I think the device tested is really fast PCIe SSD builded by fusionio > with fusionio in house block driver? It is pci-e flash storage, but it is not fusion-io. > any compare number with current mainline? Sure, I should have included that. Here's the table again, this time with mainline as well. Devices Branch IOPS 1 mainline ~870K 1 kaio ~915K 1 kaio-dio ~930K 1 jaio ~1220K 6 kaio ~3050K 6 kaio-dio ~3080K 6 jaio ~3500K 6 mainline ~2850K -- Jens Axboe