From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2018 11:40:42 +0100 From: Oleksandr Natalenko To: Jens Axboe Cc: Paolo Valente , Linus Walleij , linux-block , linux-mmc , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Pavel Machek , Ulf Hansson , Richard Weinberger , Adrian Hunter , Bart Van Assche , Jan Kara , Artem Bityutskiy , Christoph Hellwig , Alan Cox , Mark Brown , Damien Le Moal , Johannes Thumshirn , Jonathan Corbet Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: BFQ default for single queue devices In-Reply-To: <7375c004-ac6e-c692-4282-46de554285d5@kernel.dk> References: <20181015141059.26579-1-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <307F6078-0A77-4AAA-BE1A-55C2ACC328CC@linaro.org> <689F28AA-92B5-48B5-BBE7-0B589F163228@linaro.org> <7375c004-ac6e-c692-4282-46de554285d5@kernel.dk> Message-ID: <7fff1835bc9a0a95686db27d524e6818@natalenko.name> List-ID: Hi. On 16.10.2018 19:35, Jens Axboe wrote: > Do you have anything more recent? All of these predate the current > code (by a lot), and isn't even mq. I'm mostly just interested in > plain fast NVMe device, and a big box hardware raid setup with > a ton of drives. > > I do still think that this should be going through the distros, they > need to be the ones driving this, as they will ultimately be the > ones getting customer reports on regressions. The qual/test cycle > they do is useful for this. In mainline, if we make a change like > this, we'll figure out if it worked many releases down the line. Some benchmarks here for a non-RAID setup obtained by S suite. This is from Lenovo T460s with SAMSUNG MZNTY256HDHP-000L7 SSD. v4.19 kernel is running with all recent BFQ patches applied. # replayed gnome terminal startup throughput # Workload bfq mq-deadline 0r-raw_seq 13.2617 13.4867 10r-raw_seq 512.507 539.95 # replayed gnome terminal startup time # Workload bfq mq-deadline 0r-raw_seq 0.43 0.4 10r-raw_seq 0.685 4.1625 # replayed lowriter startup throughput # Workload bfq mq-deadline 0r-raw_seq 9.985 10.375 10r-raw_seq 516.62 539.61 # replayed lowriter startup time # Workload bfq mq-deadline 0r-raw_seq 0.4 0.3875 10r-raw_seq 0.535 2.3875 # replayed xterm startup throughput # Workload bfq mq-deadline 0r-raw_seq 5.93833 6.10834 10r-raw_seq 524.447 539.991 # replayed xterm startup time # Workload bfq mq-deadline 0r-raw_seq 0.23 0.23 10r-raw_seq 0.38 1.56 # throughput # Workload bfq mq-deadline 10r-raw_rand 362.446 363.817 10r-raw_seq 537.646 540.609 1r-raw_seq 500.733 502.526 Throughput-wise, BFQ is on-par with mq-deadline. Latency-wise, BFQ is much-much better. -- Oleksandr Natalenko (post-factum)