linux-block.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Jooyung Han <jooyung@google.com>,
	Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>,
	Heinz Mauelshagen <heinzm@redhat.com>,
	zkabelac@redhat.com, dm-devel@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] the dm-loop target
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 08:16:51 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z8zd85X2gosbrsc8@fedora> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <81b037c8-8fea-2d4c-0baf-d9aa18835063@redhat.com>

On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 04:21:58PM +0100, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > I didn't say you were. I said the concept that dm-loop is based on
> > is fundamentally flawed and that your benchmark setup does not
> > reflect real world usage of loop devices.
> 
> > Where are the bug reports about the loop device being slow and the
> > analysis that indicates that it is unfixable?
> 
> So, I did benchmarks on an enterprise nvme drive (SAMSUNG 
> MZPLJ1T6HBJR-00007). I stacked ext4/loop/ext4, xfs/loop/xfs (using losetup 
> --direct-io=on), ext4/dm-loop/ext4 and xfs/dm-loop/xfs. And loop is slow.
> 
> synchronous I/O:
> fio --direct=1 --bs=4k --runtime=10 --time_based --numjobs=12 --ioengine=psync --iodepth=1 --group_reporting=1 --filename=/mnt/test2/l -name=job --rw=rw
> raw block device:
>    READ: bw=399MiB/s (418MB/s), 399MiB/s-399MiB/s (418MB/s-418MB/s), io=3985MiB (4179MB), run=10001-10001msec
>   WRITE: bw=399MiB/s (418MB/s), 399MiB/s-399MiB/s (418MB/s-418MB/s), io=3990MiB (4184MB), run=10001-10001msec
> ext4/loop/ext4:
>    READ: bw=223MiB/s (234MB/s), 223MiB/s-223MiB/s (234MB/s-234MB/s), io=2232MiB (2341MB), run=10002-10002msec
>   WRITE: bw=223MiB/s (234MB/s), 223MiB/s-223MiB/s (234MB/s-234MB/s), io=2231MiB (2339MB), run=10002-10002msec
> xfs/loop/xfs:
>    READ: bw=220MiB/s (230MB/s), 220MiB/s-220MiB/s (230MB/s-230MB/s), io=2196MiB (2303MB), run=10001-10001msec
>   WRITE: bw=219MiB/s (230MB/s), 219MiB/s-219MiB/s (230MB/s-230MB/s), io=2193MiB (2300MB), run=10001-10001msec
> ext4/dm-loop/ext4:
>    READ: bw=338MiB/s (355MB/s), 338MiB/s-338MiB/s (355MB/s-355MB/s), io=3383MiB (3547MB), run=10002-10002msec
>   WRITE: bw=338MiB/s (355MB/s), 338MiB/s-338MiB/s (355MB/s-355MB/s), io=3385MiB (3549MB), run=10002-10002msec
> xfs/dm-loop/xfs:
>    READ: bw=375MiB/s (393MB/s), 375MiB/s-375MiB/s (393MB/s-393MB/s), io=3752MiB (3934MB), run=10002-10002msec
>   WRITE: bw=376MiB/s (394MB/s), 376MiB/s-376MiB/s (394MB/s-394MB/s), io=3756MiB (3938MB), run=10002-10002msec
> 
> asynchronous I/O:
> fio --direct=1 --bs=4k --runtime=10 --time_based --numjobs=12 --ioengine=libaio --iodepth=16 --group_reporting=1 --filename=/mnt/test2/l -name=job --rw=rw
> raw block device:
>    READ: bw=1246MiB/s (1306MB/s), 1246MiB/s-1246MiB/s (1306MB/s-1306MB/s), io=12.2GiB (13.1GB), run=10001-10001msec
>   WRITE: bw=1247MiB/s (1308MB/s), 1247MiB/s-1247MiB/s (1308MB/s-1308MB/s), io=12.2GiB (13.1GB), run=10001-10001msec

BTW, raw device is supposed to be xfs or ext4 over raw block device, right?

Otherwise, please provide test data for this case, then it becomes one fair
comparison because there should be lock contention for FS write IOs on same file.



Thanks,
Ming


  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-03-09  0:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <7d6ae2c9-df8e-50d0-7ad6-b787cb3cfab4@redhat.com>
2025-03-03 13:59 ` [PATCH] the dm-loop target Christoph Hellwig
     [not found]   ` <CAM23VxprhJgOPfhxQf6QNWzHd6+-ZwbjSo-oMHCD2WDQiKntMg@mail.gmail.com>
2025-03-03 15:13     ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-03 15:22       ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-03-03 15:31         ` Christoph Hellwig
     [not found]       ` <CAM23VxprSduDDK8qvLVkUt9WWmLMPFjhqKB8X4e6gw7Wv-6R2w@mail.gmail.com>
2025-03-03 17:24         ` Christoph Hellwig
     [not found]           ` <CAM23Vxoxyrf9nwJd1Xe8uncAPiyK8yaNZNsugwX8p=qo1n6yVg@mail.gmail.com>
2025-03-04 13:52             ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-03 16:16   ` Mikulas Patocka
2025-03-03 17:24     ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-03 21:03       ` Mikulas Patocka
2025-03-04  2:13         ` Dave Chinner
2025-03-04 11:18           ` Mikulas Patocka
2025-03-04 13:50             ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-05  0:01             ` Dave Chinner
2025-03-07 15:21               ` Mikulas Patocka
2025-03-08  3:49                 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-03-08 20:45                   ` Mikulas Patocka
2025-03-09  0:05                 ` Ming Lei
2025-03-10 11:18                   ` Mikulas Patocka
2025-03-11  1:27                     ` Dave Chinner
2025-03-11 10:43                       ` Ming Lei
2025-03-12  2:34                         ` Dave Chinner
2025-03-12  6:24                           ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-12  8:26                           ` Ming Lei
2025-03-13  1:36                             ` Ming Lei
2025-03-13 16:36                             ` Mikulas Patocka
2025-03-18  4:27                               ` Dave Chinner
2025-03-18  7:57                                 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-18  9:34                                   ` Ming Lei
2025-03-20  7:08                                     ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-20  7:41                                       ` Ming Lei
2025-03-20 14:22                                         ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-20 14:36                                           ` Ming Lei
2025-03-25 10:15                                         ` Dave Chinner
2025-03-25 12:23                                           ` Ming Lei
2025-03-09  0:16                 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2025-03-10 11:20                   ` Mikulas Patocka
2025-03-04 13:49         ` Christoph Hellwig
     [not found]           ` <CAM23Vxr=fKy-0L1R5P-5h6A95acKT_d=CC1E+TAzAs8v6q9gHw@mail.gmail.com>
2025-03-04 16:04             ` Christoph Hellwig
     [not found]               ` <CAM23VxqJX46DCpCiH5qxPpDLtMVg87Ba8sx55aQ4hvt-XaHzuQ@mail.gmail.com>
2025-03-04 17:17                 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-12 13:26           ` Kent Overstreet
2025-03-12 14:20             ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-12 16:09               ` Kent Overstreet
2025-03-13 12:44                 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-13 16:21               ` Mikulas Patocka
2025-03-13 16:33                 ` Kent Overstreet

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=Z8zd85X2gosbrsc8@fedora \
    --to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=agk@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=dm-devel@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=heinzm@redhat.com \
    --cc=jooyung@google.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
    --cc=snitzer@kernel.org \
    --cc=zkabelac@redhat.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).