From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>,
"'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <axboe@suse.de>
Subject: RE: Direct io on block device has performance regression on 2.6.x kernel
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 18:04:04 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200503100204.j2A244g28335@unix-os.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To:
Chen, Kenneth W wrote on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 5:45 PM
> Andrew Morton wrote on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 5:34 PM
> > What are these percentages? Total CPU time? The direct-io stuff doesn't
> > look too bad. It's surprising that tweaking the direct-io submission code
> > makes much difference.
>
> Percentage is relative to total kernel time. There are three DIO functions
> showed up in the profile:
>
> __blockdev_direct_IO 4.97%
> dio_bio_end_io 2.70%
> dio_bio_complete 1.20%
For the sake of comparison, let's look at the effect of performance patch on
raw device, in place of the above three functions, we now have two:
raw_file_rw 1.59%
raw_file_aio_rw 1.19%
A total saving of 6.09% (4.97+2.70+1.20 -1.59-1.19). That's only counting
the cpu cycles. We have tons of other data showing significant kernel path
length reduction with the performance patch. Cache misses reduced across
the entire 3 level cache hierarchy, that's a secondary effect can not be
ignored since kernel is also competing cache resource with application.
- Ken
next reply other threads:[~2005-03-10 2:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-03-10 2:04 Chen, Kenneth W [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-03-10 1:24 Direct io on block device has performance regression on 2.6.x kernel Chen, Kenneth W
2005-03-09 22:18 Chen, Kenneth W
2005-03-09 23:23 ` Andi Kleen
2005-03-09 23:52 ` Jesse Barnes
2005-03-09 23:52 ` Jesse Barnes
2005-03-10 1:00 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-03-10 0:57 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-03-09 1:53 Chen, Kenneth W
2005-03-09 1:39 Chen, Kenneth W
2005-03-09 6:27 ` Andrew Morton
2005-03-09 17:21 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-03-09 20:04 ` Andrew Morton
2005-03-09 21:59 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-03-09 22:44 ` Andrew Morton
2005-03-10 1:11 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-03-10 1:33 ` Andrew Morton
2005-03-10 1:44 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-03-10 2:25 ` Andrew Morton
2005-03-10 3:47 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-03-10 4:04 ` David Lang
2005-03-10 4:10 ` Andrew Morton
2005-03-10 4:09 ` Andrew Morton
2005-03-10 18:31 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-03-10 20:30 ` Andrew Morton
2005-03-10 21:42 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-03-10 22:01 ` Andrew Morton
2005-03-10 4:28 ` Andrew Vasquez
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=200503100204.j2A244g28335@unix-os.sc.intel.com \
--to=kenneth.w.chen@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--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