public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@hp.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Subject: Block IO: more io-cpu-affinity results
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:47:32 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4804A3E4.1060605@hp.com> (raw)

On a 4-way IA64 box we are seeing definite improvements in overall
system responsiveness w/ the patch series currently in Jens'
io-cpu-affinity branch on his block IO git repository. In this
microbenchmark, I peg 4 processes to 4 separate processors: 2 are doing
CPU-intensive work (sqrts) and 2 are doing IO-intensive work (4KB direct
reads from RAID array cache - thus limiting physical disk accesses).

There are 2 variables: whether rq_affinity is on or off for the devices
under test for the IO-intensive procs, and whether the IO-intensive
procs are pegged onto the same CPU as is handling IRQs for its device.
The results are averaged over 4-minute runs per permutation.

When the IO-intensive procs are pegged onto the CPU that is handling
IRQs for its device, we see no real difference between rq_affinity on or
off:

rq=0 local=1     66.616 (M sqrt/sec)   12.312 (K ios/sec)
rq=1 local=1     66.616 (M sqrt/sec)   12.314 (K ios/sec)

Both see 66.616 million sqrts per second, and 12,300 IOs per second.

However, when we move the 2 IO-intensive threads onto CPUs that are not
handling its IRQs, we see a definite improvement - both in terms of the
amount of CPU-intensive work we can do (about 4%), as well as the number
of IOs per second achieved (about 1%):

rq=0 local=0     61.929 (M sqrt/sec)   11.911 (K ios/sec)
rq=1 local=0     64.386 (M sqrt/sec)   12.026 (K ios/sec)

Alan


             reply	other threads:[~2008-04-15 12:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-04-15 12:47 Alan D. Brunelle [this message]
2008-04-15 17:04 ` Block IO: more io-cpu-affinity results 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=4804A3E4.1060605@hp.com \
    --to=alan.brunelle@hp.com \
    --cc=jens.axboe@oracle.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