From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Alexey Kopytov <alexeyk@mysql.com>
Cc: linuxram@us.ibm.com, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, peter@mysql.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, axboe@suse.de
Subject: Re: Random file I/O regressions in 2.6 [patch+results]
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:59:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040520145902.27647dee.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200405200506.03006.alexeyk@mysql.com>
(Resend due to osdl<->vger smtp bunfight)
Alexey Kopytov <alexeyk@mysql.com> wrote:
>
> Ram Pai wrote:
>
> >Attached the cleaned up patch and the performance results of the patch.
> >
> >Overall Observation:
> > 1.Small improvement with iozone with the patch, and overall
> > much better performance than 2.4
> > 2.Small/neglegible improvement with DSS workload.
> > 3.Negligible impact with sysbench, but results worser than
> > 2.4 kernels
>
> Ram, can you clarify the status of this patch please?
Everything we have is now in Linus's tree. And in 2.6.6-mm4.
> I ran the same sysbench test on my hardware with patched 2.6.6 and got
> 122.2348s execution time, i.e. almost the same results as in the original
> tests. Is this patch an intermediate step to improve the sysbench workload on
> 2.6, or it just addresses another problem?
The patches in Linus's tree improve sysbench significantly here. It's a
256MB 2-way with IDE disks, writeback caching enabled:
sysbench --num-threads=16 --test=fileio --file-total-size=2G --file-test-mode=rndrw run
2.4.27-pre2, ext2:
Time spent for test: 61.0240s
0.06s user 6.03s system 4% cpu 2:05.95 total
Time spent for test: 60.8456s
0.11s user 5.49s system 4% cpu 2:04.94 total
2.6.6, CFQ, ext2:
Time spent for test: 85.6614s
0.05s user 5.66s system 3% cpu 2:26.75 total
Time spent for test: 85.2090s
0.06s user 5.32s system 3% cpu 2:24.75 total
2.6.6-bk, CFQ, ext2:
Time spent for test: 66.7717s
0.04s user 5.54s system 4% cpu 2:06.19 total
Time spent for test: 67.5666s
0.04s user 5.10s system 4% cpu 2:06.72 total
2.6.6, as, ext2:
Time spent for test: 83.8358s
0.07s user 5.89s system 4% cpu 2:22.92 total
Time spent for test: 83.8068s
0.06s user 5.34s system 3% cpu 2:21.33 total
2.6.6-bk, AS, ext2:
Time spent for test: 62.5316s
0.05s user 5.27s system 4% cpu 2:01.28 total
Time spent for test: 62.7401s
0.04s user 5.17s system 4% cpu 2:00.50 total
2.6.6, deadline, ext2:
Time spent for test: 103.0084s
0.06s user 5.76s system 3% cpu 2:40.74 total
Time spent for test: 101.9648s
0.07s user 5.35s system 3% cpu 2:38.83 total
2.6.6-bk, deadline, ext2:
Time spent for test: 63.3405s
0.03s user 5.49s system 4% cpu 2:01.05 total
Time spent for test: 63.5288s
0.03s user 5.05s system 4% cpu 2:00.78 total
There's still something wrong here. 2.6.6-bk+deadline is pretty equivalent
to 2.4 from an IO scheduler point of view in this test. Yet it's a couple
of percent slower.
I don't know why you're still seeing significant discrepancies.
What sort of disk+controller system are you using? If scsi, what is the
tag queue depth set to? Is writeback caching enabled on the disk?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-20 21:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-05-02 19:57 Random file I/O regressions in 2.6 Alexey Kopytov
2004-05-03 11:14 ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-03 18:08 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-03 20:22 ` Ram Pai
2004-05-03 20:57 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-03 21:37 ` Peter Zaitsev
2004-05-03 21:50 ` Ram Pai
2004-05-03 22:01 ` Peter Zaitsev
2004-05-03 21:59 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-03 22:07 ` Ram Pai
2004-05-03 23:58 ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-04 0:10 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-04 0:19 ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-04 0:50 ` Ram Pai
2004-05-04 6:29 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-04 15:03 ` Ram Pai
2004-05-04 19:39 ` Ram Pai
2004-05-04 19:48 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-04 19:58 ` Ram Pai
2004-05-04 21:51 ` Ram Pai
2004-05-04 22:29 ` Ram Pai
2004-05-04 23:01 ` Alexey Kopytov
2004-05-04 23:20 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-05 22:04 ` Alexey Kopytov
2004-05-06 8:43 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-06 18:13 ` Peter Zaitsev
2004-05-06 21:49 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-06 23:49 ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-07 1:29 ` Peter Zaitsev
2004-05-10 19:50 ` Ram Pai
2004-05-10 20:21 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-10 22:39 ` Ram Pai
2004-05-10 23:07 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-11 20:51 ` Ram Pai
2004-05-11 21:17 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-13 20:41 ` Ram Pai
2004-05-17 17:30 ` Random file I/O regressions in 2.6 [patch+results] Ram Pai
2004-05-20 1:06 ` Alexey Kopytov
2004-05-20 1:31 ` Ram Pai
2004-05-21 19:32 ` Alexey Kopytov
2004-05-20 5:49 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-20 21:59 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2004-05-20 22:23 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-21 7:31 ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-21 7:50 ` Jens Axboe
2004-05-21 8:40 ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-21 8:56 ` Spam: " Andrew Morton
2004-05-21 22:24 ` Alexey Kopytov
2004-05-21 21:13 ` Alexey Kopytov
2004-05-26 4:43 ` Alexey Kopytov
2004-05-11 22:26 ` Random file I/O regressions in 2.6 Bill Davidsen
2004-05-04 1:15 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-04 11:39 ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-04 8:27 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-05-04 8:47 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-04 8:50 ` Arjan van de Ven
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=20040520145902.27647dee.akpm@osdl.org \
--to=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=alexeyk@mysql.com \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=peter@mysql.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