From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com,
feng.tang@intel.com, fengwei.yin@intel.com, yukuai3@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [jbd2] 6a3afb6ac6: fileio.latency_95th_ms 92.5% regression
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:49:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240103094907.iupboelwjxi243h3@quack3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dcc72d34-89e1-6181-3556-a1a981256cc6@huawei.com>
Hello!
On Wed 03-01-24 11:31:39, Zhang Yi wrote:
> On 2024/1/2 15:31, kernel test robot wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > kernel test robot noticed a 92.5% regression of fileio.latency_95th_ms on:
>
> This seems a little weird, the tests doesn't use blk-cgroup, and the patch
> increase IO priority in WBT, so there shouldn't be any negative influence in
> theory.
I don't have a great explanation either but there could be some impact e.g.
due to a different request merging of IO done by JBD2 vs the flush worker or
something like that. Note that the throughput reduction is only 5.7% so it
is not huge.
> I've tested sysbench on my machine with Intel Xeon Gold 6240 CPU,
> 400GB memory with HDD disk, and couldn't reproduce this regression.
>
> ==
> Without 6a3afb6ac6 ("jbd2: increase the journal IO's priority")
> ==
>
> $ sysbench fileio --events=0 --threads=128 --time=600 --file-test-mode=seqwr --file-total-size=68719476736 --file-io-mode=sync --file-num=1024 run
>
> sysbench 1.1.0-df89d34 (using bundled LuaJIT 2.1.0-beta3)
>
> Running the test with following options:
> Number of threads: 128
> Initializing random number generator from current time
>
>
> Extra file open flags: (none)
> 1024 files, 64MiB each
> 64GiB total file size
> Block size 16KiB
> Periodic FSYNC enabled, calling fsync() each 100 requests.
> Calling fsync() at the end of test, Enabled.
> Using synchronous I/O mode
> Doing sequential write (creation) test
> Initializing worker threads...
>
> Threads started!
>
>
> Throughput:
> read: IOPS=0.00 0.00 MiB/s (0.00 MB/s)
> write: IOPS=31961.19 499.39 MiB/s (523.65 MB/s)
> fsync: IOPS=327500.24
Well, your setup seems to be very different from what LKP was using. You
are achieving ~500 MB/s (likely because all the files fit into the cache
and more or less even within the dirty limit of the page cache) while LKP
run achieves only ~54 MB/s (i.e., we are pretty much bound by the rather
slow disk). I'd try running with something like 32GB of RAM to really see
the disk speed impact...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-03 9:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-02 7:31 [linus:master] [jbd2] 6a3afb6ac6: fileio.latency_95th_ms 92.5% regression kernel test robot
2024-01-03 3:31 ` Zhang Yi
2024-01-03 5:53 ` Oliver Sang
2024-01-03 9:49 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2024-01-03 13:28 ` Zhang Yi
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=20240103094907.iupboelwjxi243h3@quack3 \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.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