From: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: dsterba@suse.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] btrfs: read_policy types latency, device and round-robin
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 09:08:49 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <da5c6fc8-95ef-6272-ea2a-4929fc32c69c@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ac428935-c20c-d02d-6678-d88cc5eb4b63@toxicpanda.com>
On 28/10/20 10:32 pm, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 10/28/20 9:25 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
>> Based on misc-next
>>
>> Depends on the following 3 patches in the mailing list.
>> btrfs: add btrfs_strmatch helper
>> btrfs: create read policy framework
>> btrfs: create read policy sysfs attribute, pid
>>
>> v1:
>> Drop tracing patch
>> Drop factoring inflight command
>> Here below is the performance differences, when inflight is used,
>> it pushed
>> few commands to the other device, so losing the potential merges.
>>
>> with inflight:
>> READ: bw=195MiB/s (204MB/s), 195MiB/s-195MiB/s (204MB/s-204MB/s),
>> io=15.6GiB (16.8GB), run=82203-82203msec
>> sda 256054
>> sdc 20
>>
>> without inflight:
>> READ: bw=192MiB/s (202MB/s), 192MiB/s-192MiB/s (202MB/s-202MB/s),
>> io=15.6GiB (16.8GB), run=83231-83231msec
>> sda 141006
>> sdc 0
>>
>
> What's the baseline? I think 3mib/s is not that big of a tradeoff for
> complexity, but if baseline is like 190mib/s then maybe its worth it.
> If baseline is 90mib/s then I say it's not worth the inflight. Thanks,
Oh no I have to rerun the test cases here. As far as I remember
without inflight was better than with inflight. Because with
inflight there were fewer merges leading to more read IOs.
Will rerun and send the data.
Thanks, Anand
>
> Josef
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-29 1:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-28 13:25 [PATCH v1 0/4] btrfs: read_policy types latency, device and round-robin Anand Jain
2020-10-28 13:26 ` [PATCH 1/4] btrfs: add read_policy latency Anand Jain
2020-10-28 14:30 ` Josef Bacik
2020-10-29 1:06 ` Anand Jain
2020-10-28 13:26 ` [PATCH 2/4] btrfs: introduce new device-state read_preferred Anand Jain
2020-10-28 14:37 ` Josef Bacik
2020-10-29 1:12 ` Anand Jain
2020-10-28 13:26 ` [PATCH 3/4] btrfs: introduce new read_policy device Anand Jain
2020-10-28 14:40 ` Josef Bacik
2020-10-29 1:56 ` Anand Jain
2020-10-28 13:26 ` [PATCH RFC 4/4] btrfs: introduce new read_policy round-robin Anand Jain
2020-10-28 14:44 ` Josef Bacik
2020-10-29 2:06 ` Anand Jain
2020-10-28 14:32 ` [PATCH v1 0/4] btrfs: read_policy types latency, device and round-robin Josef Bacik
2020-10-29 1:08 ` Anand Jain [this message]
2020-10-29 7:44 ` Anand Jain
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=da5c6fc8-95ef-6272-ea2a-4929fc32c69c@oracle.com \
--to=anand.jain@oracle.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@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