From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Radha Ramachandran <radha@google.com>
Cc: fio@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Disabling verify when norandommap is given
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:26:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090219182611.GG29783@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <66dfd3fe0902191010l64a2d915o973c0a3b486e0143@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Feb 19 2009, Radha Ramachandran wrote:
> Yes, that makes sense for a randwrite operation.
> But is it acceptable to allow norandommap with verify for
> read/randomread only operations with no writes involved. The case Iam
> specifically interested in is doing sequential writes followed by
> sequential reads (with verify) and then randomaccess reads (with
> verify). For a small enough block size on a large enough drive the
> norandommap takes up too much memory.
The memory usage is indeed problematic, that is why the option exists.
I'd be very happy to slim that down...
What you suggest will work, but only for fixed size blocks. Once you
have varying block sizes, a given random minimum block offset may be
inside a verify block, not at the start of it.
So I guess the 'norandommap disables verify' can be relaxed to
'norandommap disables verify IFF non-fixed block sizes are used'. I'm
assuming that would work for you? Please try the below patch. If
succesful, I'll augment it with an updated HOWTO description.
diff --git a/init.c b/init.c
index 95c282a..001e5c4 100644
--- a/init.c
+++ b/init.c
@@ -206,6 +206,13 @@ static int setup_rate(struct thread_data *td)
return 0;
}
+static int fixed_block_size(struct thread_options *o)
+{
+ return o->min_bs[DDIR_READ] == o->max_bs[DDIR_READ] &&
+ o->min_bs[DDIR_WRITE] == o->max_bs[DDIR_WRITE] &&
+ o->min_bs[DDIR_READ] == o->min_bs[DDIR_WRITE];
+}
+
/*
* Lazy way of fixing up options that depend on each other. We could also
* define option callback handlers, but this is easier.
@@ -269,8 +276,10 @@ static int fixup_options(struct thread_data *td)
if (!o->file_size_high)
o->file_size_high = o->file_size_low;
- if (o->norandommap && o->verify != VERIFY_NONE) {
- log_err("fio: norandommap given, verify disabled\n");
+ if (o->norandommap && o->verify != VERIFY_NONE
+ && !fixed_block_size(o)) {
+ log_err("fio: norandommap given for variable block sizes, "
+ "verify disabled\n");
o->verify = VERIFY_NONE;
}
if (o->bs_unaligned && (o->odirect || td->io_ops->flags & FIO_RAWIO))
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-19 18:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-18 23:12 Disabling verify when norandommap is given Radha Ramachandran
2009-02-19 7:47 ` Jens Axboe
2009-02-19 18:10 ` Radha Ramachandran
2009-02-19 18:26 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2009-02-19 19:56 ` Radha Ramachandran
2009-02-19 20:12 ` Jens Axboe
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=20090219182611.GG29783@kernel.dk \
--to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=fio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=radha@google.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox