From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Cc: bvanassche@acm.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET RFC 0/2] mq-deadline scalability improvements
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 13:22:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7f1f90e9-d034-48da-8149-73a6dec20c9e@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ede4179c-8fa5-4496-ac21-4e3fda41df81@kernel.dk>
On 1/18/24 12:29 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/18/24 11:04 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> With that in place, the same test case now does:
>>
>> Device QD Jobs IOPS Contention Diff
>> =============================================================
>> null_blk 4 32 2250K 28% +106%
>> nvme0n1 4 32 2560K 23% +112%
>
> nvme0n1 4 32 2560K 23% +139%
>
> Apparently I can't math, this is a +139% improvement for the nvme
> case... Just wanted to make it clear that the IOPS number was correct,
> it's just the diff math that was wrong.
And further followup, since I ran some quick testing on another box that
has a raid1 more normal drive (SATA, 32 tags). Both pre and post the
patches, the performance is roughly the same. The bigger difference is
that the pre result is using 8% systime to do ~73K, and with the patches
we're using 1% systime to do the same work.
This should help answer the question "does this matter at all?". The
answer is definitely yes. It's not just about scalability, as is usually
the case with improving things like this, it's about efficiency as well.
8x the sys time is ridiculous.
--
Jens Axboe
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-18 20:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-18 18:04 [PATCHSET RFC 0/2] mq-deadline scalability improvements Jens Axboe
2024-01-18 18:04 ` [PATCH 1/2] block/mq-deadline: serialize request dispatching Jens Axboe
2024-01-18 18:24 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-01-18 18:45 ` Jens Axboe
2024-01-18 18:51 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-01-18 18:55 ` Jens Axboe
2024-01-19 2:40 ` Ming Lei
2024-01-19 15:49 ` Jens Axboe
2024-01-18 18:04 ` [PATCH 2/2] block/mq-deadline: fallback to per-cpu insertion buckets under contention Jens Axboe
2024-01-18 18:25 ` Keith Busch
2024-01-18 18:28 ` Jens Axboe
2024-01-18 18:31 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-01-18 18:33 ` Jens Axboe
2024-01-18 18:53 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-01-18 18:56 ` Jens Axboe
2024-01-18 20:46 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-01-18 20:52 ` Jens Axboe
2024-01-19 23:11 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-01-18 19:29 ` [PATCHSET RFC 0/2] mq-deadline scalability improvements Jens Axboe
2024-01-18 20:22 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
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=7f1f90e9-d034-48da-8149-73a6dec20c9e@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=linux-block@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox