From: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@hp.com>
To: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@hp.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
npiggin@suse.de, dgc@sgi.com
Subject: Re: IO CPU affinity test results
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:23:40 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47DA6E4C.2000803@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47DA6C1E.8010000@hp.com>
Alan D. Brunelle wrote:
> Good morning Jens -
>
> I had two machines running the latest patches hang last night:
>
> o 2-way AMD64 - I inadvertently left the patched kernel running, and I was moving a ton of data (100+GB) back up over the net to this node. It hard hung (believe it or not) about 99% of the way through. Hard hang, wouldn't respond to anything.
>
> o 4-way IA64 - I was performing a simple test: [mkfs / mount / untar linux sources / make allnoconfig / make -j 5 / umount] repeatedly switching rq_affinity to 0/1 between each run. After 22 passes it had a hard hang with rq_affinity set to 1.
>
> Of course, there is no way of knowing if either hang had anything to do with the patches, but it seems a bit ominous as RQ=1 was set in both cases.
>
> This same test worked fine for 30 passes on a 2-way AMD64 box, with the following results:
>
> Part RQ MIN AVG MAX Dev
> ----- -- ------ ------ ------ ------
> mkfs 0 41.656 41.862 42.086 0.141
> mkfs 1 41.618 41.909 42.270 0.192
>
> untar 0 18.055 19.611 20.906 0.720
> untar 1 18.523 19.905 21.988 0.738
>
> make 0 50.480 50.991 51.752 0.340
> make 1 49.819 50.442 51.000 0.292
>
> comb 0 110.433 112.464 114.176 0.932
> comb 1 110.694 112.256 114.683 0.948
>
> psys 0 10.28% 10.91% 11.29% 0.243
> psys 1 10.21% 11.05% 11.80% 0.350
>
>
> All results are in seconds (as measured by Python's time.time()), except for the psys - which was the average of mpstat's %sys column over the life of the whole run. The mkfs part consisted of [mkfs -t ext2 ; sync ; sync], untar [mount; untar linux sources; umount; sync; sync], make [mount; make allnoconfig; make -j 3; umount; sync; sync], and comb is the combined times of the mkfs, untar and make parts.
>
> So, in a nutshell, we saw slightly better overall performance, but not conclusively, and we saw slightly elevated %system time to accomplish the task.
>
> On the 4-way, results were much worse: the final data shown before the system hung showed the rq=1 passes taking significantly longer, albeit at lower %system. I'm going to try the runs again, but I have a feeling that the latest "clean" patch based upon Nick's single call mechanism is a step backwards.
>
> Alan
I was able to go back and capture the results after 17 passes on the 4-way IA64 box (before it hung), and with rq=1 it shows a huge increase in time needed to do the combined tests - almost 18% longer, however with a reduction of about 24% less system time.
Part RQ MIN AVG MAX Dev
----- -- ------ ------ ------ ------
mkfs 0 18.543 19.055 19.514 0.285
mkfs 1 18.730 19.217 19.812 0.316
untar 0 17.119 21.396 43.868 8.025
untar 1 16.987 28.155 44.637 10.175
make 0 23.105 23.866 24.487 0.359
make 1 24.015 28.384 37.829 3.598
comb 0 59.610 64.317 86.733 7.896
comb 1 63.181 75.755 94.079 10.489
psys 0 10.35% 14.16% 16.28% 1.375
psys 1 6.89% 10.73% 14.30% 2.368
I'll try to snag some profile data to see what's up.
Alan
PS. Besides the AMD64/IA64 architectural difference, the underlying storage was different as well: U320 on the AMD64 and FC on the IA64, I don't know if that has anything to do with the different results seen on the two hosts.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-14 12:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-14 12:14 IO CPU affinity test results Alan D. Brunelle
2008-03-14 12:23 ` Alan D. Brunelle [this message]
2008-03-14 12:37 ` Jens Axboe
2008-03-14 12:36 ` Jens Axboe
2008-03-14 13:05 ` Jens Axboe
2008-03-14 13:41 ` Alan D. Brunelle
2008-03-14 15:55 ` Alan D. Brunelle
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=47DA6E4C.2000803@hp.com \
--to=alan.brunelle@hp.com \
--cc=dgc@sgi.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
/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