All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@broadcom.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: SCSI Mailing List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Reduced latency is killing performance
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:56:29 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <db715a3a74c33343f1ac387a30dfcdab@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0d0f1e6f-0f61-c316-8db8-112c4de1d8c9@kernel.dk>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-scsi-
> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Jens Axboe
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 10:18 PM
> To: Hannes Reinecke; Christoph Hellwig
> Cc: SCSI Mailing List; linux-block@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Reduced latency is killing performance
>
> On 11/10/2016 09:04 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > this really feels like a follow-up to the discussion we've had in
> > Santa Fe, but finally I'm able to substantiate it with some numbers.
> >
> > I've made a patch to enable the megaraid_sas driver for multiqueue.
> > While this is pretty straightforward (I'll be sending the patchset
> > later on), the results are ... interesting.
> >
> > I've run the 'ssd-test.fio' script from Jens' repository, and these
> > results for MQ/SQ (- is mq, + is sq):
> >
> >  Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> > -   READ: io=10641MB, aggrb=181503KB/s, minb=181503KB/s,
> > maxb=181503KB/s, mint=60033msec, maxt=60033msec
> > +   READ: io=18370MB, aggrb=312572KB/s, minb=312572KB/s,
> > maxb=312572KB/s, mint=60181msec, maxt=60181msec
> >
> >  Run status group 1 (all jobs):
> > -   READ: io=441444KB, aggrb=7303KB/s, minb=7303KB/s, maxb=7303KB/s,
> > mint=60443msec, maxt=60443msec
> > +   READ: io=223108KB, aggrb=3707KB/s, minb=3707KB/s, maxb=3707KB/s,
> > mint=60182msec, maxt=60182msec
> >
> >  Run status group 2 (all jobs):
> > -  WRITE: io=22485MB, aggrb=383729KB/s, minb=383729KB/s,
> > maxb=383729KB/s, mint=60001msec, maxt=60001msec
> > +  WRITE: io=47421MB, aggrb=807581KB/s, minb=807581KB/s,
> > maxb=807581KB/s, mint=60129msec, maxt=60129msec
> >
> >  Run status group 3 (all jobs):
> > -  WRITE: io=489852KB, aggrb=8110KB/s, minb=8110KB/s, maxb=8110KB/s,
> > mint=60399msec, maxt=60399msec
> > +  WRITE: io=489748KB, aggrb=8134KB/s, minb=8134KB/s, maxb=8134KB/s,
> > mint=60207msec, maxt=60207msec
> >
> >  Disk stats (read/write):
> > -  sda: ios=2834412/5878578, merge=0/0, ticks=86269292/48364836,
> > in_queue=135345876, util=99.20%
> > +  sda: ios=205278/2680329, merge=4552593/9580622,
> > ticks=12539912/12965228, in_queue=25512312, util=99.59%
> >
> > As you can see, we're really losing performance in the multiqueue case.
> > And the main reason for that is that we submit about _10 times_ as
> > much I/O as we do for the single-queue case.
>
> What's the setup like? I'm going to need more details.
>
> The baseline test is using the legacy path, single queue. The new test is
> multiqueue, scsi-mq. What's sda?

Hannes -

Please share setup/config details so that I can also validate and post my
findings.

` Kashyap

>
> > So I guess having an I/O scheduler is critical, even for the scsi-mq
> > case.
>
> Each of these sections is a single job. For some reason we are not merging
> as
> well as we should, that's the reason for the performance loss. In fact,
> we're not
> merging at all. That's not IO scheduling.
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
> the body of
> a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at
> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  reply	other threads:[~2016-11-11 10:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-10 16:04 Reduced latency is killing performance Hannes Reinecke
2016-11-10 16:36 ` Bart Van Assche
2016-11-10 16:36   ` Bart Van Assche
2016-11-10 16:48   ` Jens Axboe
2016-11-10 16:47 ` Jens Axboe
2016-11-11 10:26   ` Kashyap Desai [this message]
2016-11-11  7:02 ` Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory)
2016-11-11  7:02   ` Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory)
2016-11-11 11:39   ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-11-11 17:15 ` Bart Van Assche
2016-11-11 17:15   ` Bart Van Assche

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=db715a3a74c33343f1ac387a30dfcdab@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=kashyap.desai@broadcom.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=hare@suse.de \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@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.