From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Diego Calleja <diegocg@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
jens.axboe@oracle.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Performance regressions in 2.6.30-rc7?
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:34:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090716163444.GC25725@duck.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <x49ab34ptb2.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
On Thu 16-07-09 10:59:45, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> writes:
> >> OK, looking back at the blktrace data I collected, we see[1]:
> >>
> >> Total (cciss_c0d1): 2.6.29 2.6.30-rc7
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Writes Queued: 8,531K, 34,126MiB | 8,526K, 34,104MiB
> >> Write Dispatches: 556,256, 34,126MiB | 294,809, 34,105MiB <===
> >> Writes Requeued: 0 | 0
> >> Writes Completed: 556,256, 34,126MiB | 294,809, 34,105MiB
> >> Write Merges: 7,975K, 31,901MiB | 8,231K, 32,924MiB
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IO unplugs: 1,253,337 | 7,346,184 <===
> >> Timer unplugs: 1,462 | 3
> >>
> >> Hmmm...
>
> > Yeah, this looks promissing. Although what I don't get is, how come that
> > number of writes dispatched is roughly twice as much for 2.6.29 but the
> > number of unplugs is higher on 2.6.30. My naive assumption would be that
> > higher unplug rate -> less merging -> more requests dispatched.
>
> Yeah, that's confusing! I don't have an answer for you yet!
Maybe this is connected with the WRITE_SYNC changes?
> >> commit b029195dda0129b427c6e579a3bb3ae752da3a93
> >> Author: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
> >> Date: Tue Apr 7 11:38:31 2009 +0200
> >>
> >> cfq-iosched: don't let idling interfere with plugging
> >>
> >> When CFQ is waiting for a new request from a process, currently it'll
> >> immediately restart queuing when it sees such a request. This doesn't
> >> work very well with streamed IO, since we then end up splitting IO
> >> that would otherwise have been merged nicely. For a simple dd test,
> >> this causes 10x as many requests to be issued as we should have.
> >> Normally this goes unnoticed due to the low overhead of requests
> >> at the device side, but some hardware is very sensitive to request
> >> sizes and there it can cause big slow downs.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
> >>
> >> There were a couple of subsequent fixups to this commit:
> >>
> >> commit d6ceb25e8d8bccf826848c2621a50d02c0a7f4ae
> >> Author: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
> >> Date: Tue Apr 14 14:18:16 2009 +0200
> >>
> >> cfq-iosched: don't delay queue kick for a merged request
> >>
> >> commit 2d870722965211de072bb36b446a4df99dae07e1
> >> Author: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
> >> Date: Wed Apr 15 12:12:46 2009 +0200
> >>
> >> cfq-iosched: tweak kick logic a bit more
> >>
> >>
> >> So I guess that's where we need to start looking.
> > OK, I can try to check whether backing out just these changes will help
> > anything.
>
> Well, that will help identify if they are, in fact, the cause. I hope
> it's not too hard to disentangle them from the current kernel! Thanks
> for all of your work on this!
It was no problem to revert them. But the throughput didn't increase :(.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-16 16:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200905282249.28592.diegocg@gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20090529210718.bef7a9c1.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
[not found] ` <200905301851.47708.diegocg@gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20090603195806.GA9571@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
[not found] ` <1244100382.7131.12.camel@marge.simson.net>
[not found] ` <20090604112109.GC2859@duck.suse.cz>
[not found] ` <1244142795.5731.31.camel@marge.simson.net>
[not found] ` <20090609103208.GB9235@duck.suse.cz>
[not found] ` <20090609184818.GD9556@think>
2009-06-10 9:12 ` Performance regressions in 2.6.30-rc7? Jan Kara
2009-06-10 22:12 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-07-15 10:43 ` Jan Kara
2009-07-15 13:41 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-07-15 14:58 ` Jan Kara
2009-07-15 17:50 ` Jan Kara
2009-07-15 18:54 ` Jan Kara
2009-07-16 14:36 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-07-16 14:46 ` Jan Kara
2009-07-16 14:59 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-07-16 16:34 ` Jan Kara [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=20090716163444.GC25725@duck.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=diegocg@gmail.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).