From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Heinz Diehl <htd@fancy-poultry.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jaxboe@fusionio.com,
nauman@google.com, dpshah@google.com, guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com,
jmoyer@redhat.com, czoccolo@gmail.com, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: cfq fsync patch testing results (Was: Re: [RFC PATCH] cfq-iosched: IOPS mode for group scheduling and new group_idle tunable)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:56:32 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100729145632.GC25863@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100729043443.GB21736@redhat.com>
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:34:43AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 07:57:16PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:22:12PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > I also did "time firefox &" testing to see how long firefox takes to
> > > launch when linus torture test is running and without patch it took
> > > around 20 seconds and with patch it took around 17 seconds.
> > >
> > > So to me above test results suggest that this patch does not worsen
> > > the performance. In fact it helps. (at least on ext3 file system.)
> > >
> > > Not sure why are you seeing different results with XFS.
> >
> > So why didn't you test it with XFS to verify his results?
>
> Just got little lazy. Find the testing results with ext3, ext4 and
> xfs below.
>
> > We all know
> > that different filesystems have different I/O patters, and we have
> > a history of really nasty regressions in one filesystem by good meaning
> > changes to the I/O scheduler.
> >
> > ext3 in fact is a particularly bad test case as it not only doesn't have
> > I/O barriers enabled, but also has particularly bad I/O patterns
> > compared to modern filesystems.
>
> Ext3 results
> ============
> ext3 (2.6.35-rc6) ext3 (35-rc6-fsync)
> ----------------- -------------------
> fsync time: 3.4173 fsync time: 0.0171
> fsync time: 0.8831 fsync time: 0.0951
> fsync time: 0.6985 fsync time: 0.0848
> fsync time: 8.9449 fsync time: 0.1206
> fsync time: 4.3075 fsync time: 0.4150
> fsync time: 6.0146 fsync time: 0.0856
> fsync time: 9.7134 fsync time: 0.1151
> fsync time: 9.2247 fsync time: 0.1083
> fsync time: 6.5061 fsync time: 0.1218
> fsync time: 6.1862 fsync time: 4.1666
> fsync time: 6.1136 fsync time: 0.1075
> fsync time: 3.3593 fsync time: 0.3442
> fsync time: 4.3309 fsync time: 0.1062
> fsync time: 2.3596 fsync time: 2.8502
> fsync time: 0.0151 fsync time: 0.0433
> fsync time: 0.0180 fsync time: 4.0526
> fsync time: 0.3685 fsync time: 0.1819
> fsync time: 2.7396 fsync time: 0.1479
> fsync time: 3.1537 fsync time: 0.1480
> fsync time: 2.4474 fsync time: 0.1715
> fsync time: 2.7085 fsync time: 0.0079
> fsync time: 3.1629 fsync time: 0.0181
> fsync time: 2.9186 fsync time: 0.0134
>
> XFS results
> ==========
> XFS (2.6.35-rc6) XFS (with fsync patch)
> fsync time: 5.0746 fsync time: 1.8025
> fsync time: 3.0057 fsync time: 2.3392
> fsync time: 3.0960 fsync time: 2.2810
> fsync time: 2.8392 fsync time: 2.2894
> fsync time: 2.4901 fsync time: 2.3059
> fsync time: 2.3151 fsync time: 2.3061
> fsync time: 2.3066 fsync time: 2.9825
> fsync time: 0.6608 fsync time: 2.3144
> fsync time: 0.0595 fsync time: 2.2894
> fsync time: 2.0977 fsync time: 0.0508
> fsync time: 2.3236 fsync time: 2.3396
> fsync time: 2.3229 fsync time: 2.3310
> fsync time: 2.3065 fsync time: 2.3061
> fsync time: 2.3234 fsync time: 2.3060
> fsync time: 2.3150 fsync time: 2.3561
> fsync time: 2.3149 fsync time: 2.3313
> fsync time: 2.3234 fsync time: 2.0221
> fsync time: 2.3066 fsync time: 2.2891
> fsync time: 2.3232 fsync time: 2.3144
> fsync time: 2.3317 fsync time: 2.3144
> fsync time: 2.3321 fsync time: 2.2894
> fsync time: 2.3232 fsync time: 2.3228
> fsync time: 0.0514 fsync time: 2.3144
> fsync time: 2.2480 fsync time: 0.0506
>
> Ext4
> ====
> ext4 (vanilla) ext4 (patched)
> fsync time: 3.4080 fsync time: 2.9109
> fsync time: 17.8330 fsync time: 25.0503
> fsync time: 0.0922 fsync time: 2.5495
> fsync time: 0.0710 fsync time: 0.0943
> fsync time: 19.7977 fsync time: 0.0770
> fsync time: 20.6592 fsync time: 16.3287
> fsync time: 0.1020 fsync time: 24.4983
> fsync time: 0.0689 fsync time: 0.1006
> fsync time: 19.9981 fsync time: 0.0783
> fsync time: 20.6605 fsync time: 19.1181
> fsync time: 0.0930 fsync time: 22.0860
> fsync time: 0.0776 fsync time: 0.0909
>
>
> Notes:
> ======
> - Above results are with and without corrado's fsync issue patch. We
> happen to be discussing it in a different thread though, hence
> specifying it specifically.
>
> - I am running linus torture test and also running ted so's fsync-tester
> to monitor fsync latencies.
>
> - Looks like ext3 fsync times have improved.
> - XFS fsync times have remained unchanged.
> - ext4 fsync times seems to have gone up a bit.
>
> I used default mount options. So I am assuming high fsync times of ext4
> comes from the fact that barriers much be enabled by default. Will do
> some blktracing on ext4 case tomorrow, otherwise I think this patch
> looks good.
For the sake of completeness, I also ran same tests on ext3 with barrier
enabled.
ext3 (barrier=1) ext3 (barrier=1)
fsync time: 2.7601 fsync time: 1.5323
fsync time: 2.2352 fsync time: 1.5254
fsync time: 2.1689 fsync time: 1.4228
fsync time: 2.1666 fsync time: 1.8404
fsync time: 2.3017 fsync time: 5.6249
fsync time: 2.2256 fsync time: 1.6099
fsync time: 2.1588 fsync time: 1.5318
fsync time: 5.1648 fsync time: 2.0092
fsync time: 5.8390 fsync time: 1.9966
fsync time: 0.2109 fsync time: 2.0055
fsync time: 0.0906 fsync time: 2.0054
fsync time: 3.6327 fsync time: 0.1778
fsync time: 3.0161 fsync time: 0.0827
fsync time: 2.3194 fsync time: 2.3796
fsync time: 2.0581 fsync time: 1.5960
fsync time: 2.2850 fsync time: 1.5074
fsync time: 2.2002 fsync time: 1.8653
fsync time: 2.1932 fsync time: 1.8910
fsync time: 2.1753 fsync time: 1.9091
fsync time: 2.1669 fsync time: 1.8322
fsync time: 2.1671 fsync time: 1.8744
fsync time: 1.9552 fsync time: 1.8254
fsync time: 3.9870 fsync time: 1.8662
fsync time: 2.5140 fsync time: 1.8587
fsync time: 0.0867 fsync time: 1.7981
It is hard to say whether things improved or not with patch. I guess
slight improvement is there.
What is interesting though that this fsync-tester test case works well
with ext3 and xfs but with ext4 there seems to be large spikes in
fsync times.
[CCing Ted Tso]
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-29 14:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-22 21:29 [RFC PATCH] cfq-iosched: IOPS mode for group scheduling and new group_idle tunable Vivek Goyal
2010-07-22 21:29 ` [PATCH 1/5] cfq-iosched: Do not idle on service tree if slice_idle=0 Vivek Goyal
2010-07-22 21:29 ` [PATCH 2/5] cfq-iosched: Implment IOPS mode for group scheduling Vivek Goyal
2010-07-27 5:47 ` Gui Jianfeng
2010-07-27 13:09 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-22 21:29 ` [PATCH 3/5] cfq-iosched: Implement a tunable group_idle Vivek Goyal
2010-07-22 21:29 ` [PATCH 4/5] cfq-iosched: Print number of sectors dispatched per cfqq slice Vivek Goyal
2010-07-22 21:29 ` [PATCH 5/5] cfq-iosched: Documentation update Vivek Goyal
2010-07-22 21:36 ` Randy Dunlap
2010-07-23 20:22 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-23 14:03 ` [RFC PATCH] cfq-iosched: IOPS mode for group scheduling and new group_idle tunable Heinz Diehl
2010-07-23 14:13 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-23 14:56 ` Heinz Diehl
2010-07-23 18:37 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-24 8:06 ` Heinz Diehl
2010-07-26 13:43 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-26 13:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-26 13:54 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-26 16:15 ` Heinz Diehl
2010-07-26 14:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-27 7:48 ` Heinz Diehl
2010-07-28 20:22 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-28 23:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-29 4:34 ` cfq fsync patch testing results (Was: Re: [RFC PATCH] cfq-iosched: IOPS mode for group scheduling and new group_idle tunable) Vivek Goyal
2010-07-29 14:56 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2010-07-29 19:39 ` Jeff Moyer
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=20100729145632.GC25863@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=czoccolo@gmail.com \
--cc=dpshah@google.com \
--cc=guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=htd@fancy-poultry.org \
--cc=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nauman@google.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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