public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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?


  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