public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Avantika Mathur <mathur@us.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cfq performance gap
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 13:05:23 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061208120522.GN23887@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1165536200.25180.1.camel@dyn9047017105.beaverton.ibm.com>

On Thu, Dec 07 2006, Avantika Mathur wrote:
> Hi Jens, 

(you probably noticed now, but the axboe@suse.de email is no longer
valid)

> I've noticed a performance gap between the cfq scheduler and other io
> schedulers when running the rawio benchmark. 
> Results from rawio on 2.6.19, cfq and noop schedulers: 
> 
> CFQ: 
> 
> procs           device    num read   KB/sec     I/O Ops/sec 
> -----  ---------------  ----------  -------  -------------- 
>   16         /dev/sda       16412     8338            2084 
> -----  ---------------  ----------  -------  -------------- 
>   16                        16412     8338            2084 
> 
> Total run time 0.492072 seconds 
> 
> 
> NOOP: 
> 
> procs           device    num read   KB/sec     I/O Ops/sec 
> -----  ---------------  ----------  -------  -------------- 
>   16         /dev/sda       16399    29224            7306 
> -----  ---------------  ----------  -------  -------------- 
>   16                        16399    29224            7306 
> 
> Total run time 0.140284 seconds 
> 
> The benchmark workload is 16 processes running 4k random reads. 
> 
> Is this performance gap a known issue? 

CFQ could be a little slower at this benchmark, but your results are
much worse than I would expect. What is the queueing depth of sda? How
are you invoking rawio?

Your runtime is very low, how does it look if you allow the test to run
for much longer? 30MiB/sec random read bandwidth seems very high, I'm
wondering what exactly is being tested here.

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2006-12-08 12:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-12-08  0:03 cfq performance gap Avantika Mathur
2006-12-08 12:05 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2006-12-08 22:09   ` Avantika Mathur
2006-12-11 14:08     ` Jens Axboe
2006-12-13  1:32       ` AVANTIKA R. MATHUR
2006-12-13  5:23         ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-12-13  9:56           ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2006-12-13 16:20             ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-12-13 16:41               ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2006-12-13  6:52         ` Jens Axboe

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=20061208120522.GN23887@kernel.dk \
    --to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathur@us.ibm.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