From: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@oracle.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-aio@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] AIO: Don't plug the I/O queue in do_io_submit()
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:26:07 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EE7DF0F.4030506@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <x49sjkoi08u.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
On 12/13/2011 04:18 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@oracle.com> writes:
>
>> Asynchronous I/O latency to a solid-state disk greatly increased
>> between the 2.6.32 and 3.0 kernels. By removing the plug from
>> do_io_submit(), we observed a 34% improvement in the I/O latency.
>>
>> Unfortunately, at this level, we don't know if the request is to
>> a rotating disk or not.
>
> I'm guessing I know the answer to this, but what workload were you
> testing, and can you provide more concrete evidence than "latency
> greatly increased?"
It is a piece of a larger industry-standard benchmark and you're
probably guessing correctly. The "greatly increased" latency was
actually slightly higher the improvement I get with this patch. So the
patch brought the latency nearly down to where it was before.
I will try a microbenchmark to see if I get similar behavior, but I
wanted to throw this out here to get input.
I also failed to mention that the earlier kernel was a vendor kernel
(similar results on both Redhat and Oracle kernels). The 3.0 kernel is
much closer to mainline, but I haven't played with mainline kernels yet.
I expect similar results, but I can verify that.
> Also, have you tested the effects this has when
> using traditional storage for whatever your workload is?
That may be difficult, but hopefully, I can demonstrate it with a
simpler benchmark which I could test on traditional storage.
> I don't feel
> comfortable essentially reverting a performance patch without knowing
> the entire picture. I will certainly do some testing on my end, too.
Understood. Thanks,
Shaggy
> Cheers,
> Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-13 23:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-13 21:44 [PATCH] AIO: Don't plug the I/O queue in do_io_submit() Dave Kleikamp
2011-12-13 22:18 ` Jeff Moyer
2011-12-13 23:26 ` Dave Kleikamp [this message]
2011-12-14 20:58 ` Chris Mason
2011-12-16 14:45 ` Jeff Moyer
2011-12-15 1:09 ` Shaohua Li
2011-12-15 16:15 ` Jens Axboe
2011-12-15 16:40 ` Chris Mason
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=4EE7DF0F.4030506@oracle.com \
--to=dave.kleikamp@oracle.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-aio@kvack.org \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).