public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Fernando Silveira <fsilveira@gmail.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: I/O and pdflush
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 11:05:34 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090902030534.GC6248@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6afc6d4a0909010710l2cf77fbbmb1ab192ed12a7efc@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 10:10:53PM +0800, Fernando Silveira wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 05:14, Wu Fengguang<fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:33:43PM +0800, Fernando Silveira wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:07, Wu Fengguang<fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:01:13PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:00:06PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> >> >> > Hi Fernando,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What's your SSD's IO parameters? Ie. output of this command:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >         grep -r . /sys/block/sda/queue/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Please replace 'sda' with your SSD device name.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh I guess it's sdc:
> >> >>
> >> >>          grep -r . /sys/block/sdc/queue/
> >>
> >> Here is it:
> >>
> >> # grep -r . /sys/block/sdc/queue/
> >> /sys/block/sdc/queue/nr_requests:128
> >> /sys/block/sdc/queue/read_ahead_kb:128
> >> /sys/block/sdc/queue/max_hw_sectors_kb:128
> >> /sys/block/sdc/queue/max_sectors_kb:128
> >> /sys/block/sdc/queue/scheduler:noop anticipatory [deadline] cfq
> >> /sys/block/sdc/queue/hw_sector_size:512
> >> /sys/block/sdc/queue/rotational:0
> >> /sys/block/sdc/queue/nomerges:0
> >> /sys/block/sdc/queue/rq_affinity:0
> >> /sys/block/sdc/queue/iostats:1
> >> /sys/block/sdc/queue/iosched/read_expire:500
> >> /sys/block/sdc/queue/iosched/write_expire:5000
> >> /sys/block/sdc/queue/iosched/writes_starved:2
> >> /sys/block/sdc/queue/iosched/front_merges:1
> >> /sys/block/sdc/queue/iosched/fifo_batch:16
> >> #
> >>
> >> These are probably default settings.
> >>
> >> > BTW, would you run "iostat -x 1 5" (which will run 5 seconds) when
> >> > doing I/O in ideal throughput, and when in 25MB/s thoughput state?
> >>
> >> Both files are attached (25mbps = 25MB/s, 80mbps = 80MB/s).
> >
> > The iostat reported IO size is 64kb, which is half of max_sectors_kb=128.
> > It is strange why the optimal 128kb IO size is not reached in both cases:
> >
> >        Device:         rrqm/s   wrqm/s     r/s     w/s    rsec/s   wsec/s  avgrq-sz avgqu-sz   await  svctm  %util
> > case 1: sdc               0.00 69088.00     0.00  552.00     0.00 70656.00    128.00   142.75  386.39   1.81 100.10
> > case 2: sdc               0.00 153504.00    0.00 1200.00     0.00 153600.00   128.00   138.35  115.76   0.83 100.10
> >
> > Fernando, could you try increasing these deadline parameters by 10
> > times?
> >
> >        echo 160   > /sys/block/sdc/queue/iosched/fifo_batch
> >        echo 50000 > /sys/block/sdc/queue/iosched/write_expire
> 
> No changes. The iostat log is attached with the 20090901_1026 time tag
> in its name.
> 
> > And try cfq iosched if that still fails? The iostat outputs would be
> > enough during the tests.
> 
> I had already tried it before posting here, but not with iostat
> logging. The log is attached as 20090901_1037.
> 
> Please tell me if you need anything else.

OK, these traces show how performance suddenly drops:

Device:         rrqm/s   wrqm/s     r/s     w/s   rsec/s   wsec/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz   await  svctm  %util
sdc               0.00 138176.00    0.00 1098.00     0.00 140544.00   128.00   141.85  129.43   0.91 100.00
sdc               0.00 142240.00    0.00 1105.00     0.00 141440.00   128.00   141.78  128.57   0.90 100.00
sdc               0.00 140335.00    0.00 1105.00     0.00 141440.00   128.00   139.97  127.12   0.90 100.00
sdc               0.00 134858.42    0.00 1085.15     0.00 138899.01   128.00   138.91  127.34   0.91  99.01
sdc               0.00 142050.00    0.00 1099.00     0.00 140672.00   128.00   141.93  129.04   0.91 100.00
sdc               0.00 138176.00    0.00 1099.00     0.00 140672.00   128.00   141.92  129.35   0.91 100.00
sdc               0.00 109728.00    0.00  851.00     0.00 108928.00   128.00   143.74  168.61   1.18 100.00
sdc               0.00 138176.00    0.00 1101.00     0.00 140928.00   128.00   141.92  129.05   0.91 100.00
sdc               0.00 138176.00    0.00 1091.00     0.00 139776.00   128.12   141.87  129.93   0.92 100.00
sdc               0.00 142240.00    0.00 1105.00     0.00 141312.00   127.88   141.90  128.30   0.90 100.00
sdc               0.00 138176.00    0.00 1106.00     0.00 141568.00   128.00   141.78  128.49   0.90 100.00
sdc               0.00 142240.00    0.00 1100.00     0.00 140800.00   128.00   141.88  129.01   0.91 100.00
sdc               0.00 136807.92    0.00 1094.06     0.00 140039.60   128.00   140.49  128.64   0.90  99.01
sdc               0.00 129935.00    0.00 1073.00     0.00 137224.00   127.89   122.86  118.75   0.93 100.00
sdc               0.00 79368.00    0.00  581.00     0.00 74368.00   128.00   114.97  175.83   1.72 100.00
sdc               0.00 73152.00    0.00  575.00     0.00 73600.00   128.00   142.58  246.75   1.74 100.00
sdc               0.00 73152.00    0.00  575.00     0.00 73600.00   128.00   142.60  248.41   1.74 100.00
sdc               0.00 73937.00    0.00  580.00     0.00 74240.00   128.00   142.47  246.14   1.72 100.00
sdc               0.00 76431.00    0.00  578.00     0.00 73984.00   128.00   142.55  246.02   1.73 100.00
sdc               0.00 48768.00    0.00  408.00     0.00 52224.00   128.00   139.84  246.35   2.45 100.00
sdc               0.00 48285.15    0.00  377.23     0.00 48285.15   128.00   138.09  468.92   2.62  99.01
sdc               0.00 65024.00    0.00  515.00     0.00 65920.00   128.00   141.67  251.21   1.94 100.00
sdc               0.00 36456.00    0.00  264.00     0.00 33792.00   128.00   137.37  567.71   3.79 100.00
sdc               0.00 63627.00    0.00  572.00     0.00 73216.00   128.00   138.69  249.88   1.75 100.00
sdc               0.00 33267.00    0.00  216.00     0.00 27648.00   128.00   134.71  259.25   4.63 100.00
sdc               0.00 76334.00    0.00  578.00     0.00 74112.00   128.22   142.35  375.04   1.73 100.00
sdc               0.00 52952.00    0.00  418.00     0.00 53376.00   127.69   145.37  249.30   2.39 100.00
sdc               0.00 44584.00    0.00  356.00     0.00 45568.00   128.00   146.73  524.89   2.81 100.10
sdc               0.00 52952.00    0.00  412.00     0.00 52736.00   128.00   145.21  251.41   2.42  99.90
sdc               0.00 44142.57    0.00  352.48     0.00 45116.83   128.00   145.05  531.77   2.81  99.01
sdc               0.00 52952.00    0.00  412.00     0.00 52736.00   128.00   145.43  248.08   2.43 100.00
sdc               0.00 40640.00    0.00  336.00     0.00 43008.00   128.00   146.81  564.42   2.98 100.00
sdc               0.00 56896.00    0.00  432.00     0.00 55296.00   128.00   144.92  251.52   2.31 100.00
sdc               0.00 36636.00    0.00  314.00     0.00 40192.00   128.00   147.12  583.40   3.18 100.00
sdc               0.00 60900.00    0.00  454.00     0.00 58112.00   128.00   144.48  257.85   2.20 100.00
sdc               0.00 32512.00    0.00  277.00     0.00 35456.00   128.00   147.73  631.81   3.61 100.00

Is it tightly related to two interleaved write streams (the performance drop
starts and stops with the second write stream)?  If so, it sounds like a SSD
hardware/firmware problem.

Thanks,
Fengguang

  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-09-02  3:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-07-11 17:27 I/O and pdflush Fernando Silveira
2009-07-12  8:04 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-28 21:48   ` Fernando Silveira
2009-08-29 10:12     ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-29 10:21       ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-31 13:24         ` Fernando Silveira
2009-08-31 14:00           ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-31 14:01             ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-31 14:07               ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-31 14:33                 ` Fernando Silveira
2009-09-01  8:14                   ` Wu Fengguang
     [not found]                     ` <6afc6d4a0909010710l2cf77fbbmb1ab192ed12a7efc@mail.gmail.com>
2009-09-02  3:05                       ` Wu Fengguang [this message]
     [not found]                         ` <6afc6d4a0909020429l2bfecee9xd00527fcaa323751@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found]                           ` <20090902125057.GA7982@localhost>
     [not found]                             ` <6afc6d4a0909031346qda0b17coe4c60250fcac827f@mail.gmail.com>
2009-09-04  2:21                               ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-04  2:34                                 ` Wu Fengguang
     [not found] <cWOyL-3Ys-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
2009-08-31 21:57 ` Daniel J Blueman
2009-09-01 14:33   ` Fernando Silveira

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=20090902030534.GC6248@localhost \
    --to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=fsilveira@gmail.com \
    --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