lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/6][RFC] virtio-blk: Change I/O path from request to BIO
Hi Sasha!

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:28:52AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 10:00 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > This patch is follow-up of Christohp Hellwig's work
> > [RFC: ->make_request support for virtio-blk].
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1199763
> >
> > Quote from hch
> > "This patchset allows the virtio-blk driver to support much higher IOP
> > rates which can be driven out of modern PCI-e flash devices. At this
> > point it really is just a RFC due to various issues."
> >
> > I fixed race bug and add batch I/O for enhancing sequential I/O,
> > FLUSH/FUA emulation.
> >
> > I tested this patch on fusion I/O device by aio-stress.
> > Result is following as.
> >
> > Benchmark : aio-stress (64 thread, test file size 512M, 8K io per IO, O_DIRECT write)
> > Environment: 8 socket - 8 core, 2533.372Hz, Fusion IO 320G storage
> > Test repeated by 20 times
> > Guest I/O scheduler : CFQ
> > Host I/O scheduler : NOOP
> >
> > Request BIO(patch 1-4) BIO-batch(patch 1-6)
> > (MB/s) stddev (MB/s) stddev (MB/s) stddev
> > w 737.820 4.063 613.735 31.605 730.288 24.854
> > rw 208.754 20.450 314.630 37.352 317.831 41.719
> > r 770.974 2.340 347.483 51.370 750.324 8.280
> > rr 250.391 16.910 350.053 29.986 325.976 24.846
> >
> > This patch enhances ramdom I/O performance compared to request-based I/O path.
> > It's still RFC so welcome to any comment and review.
>
> I did a benchmark against a /dev/shm device instead of an actual storage
> to get rid of any artifacts which are caused by the storage itself, and
> saw that while there was a nice improvement across the board, the hit
> against sequential read and write was quite significant.

Hmm, it seems bandwidth test of sequential is bad but io test is still good.
I don't know how it is possbile that iops is better but bandwidth is bad.
Anyway, it seems sequential write bw is severe but I think it could be
better if test makes many lock overhead in vblk->lock because this patch
is started from the lock overhead.

Thanks for the testing, Sasha!

>
> I ran the tests with fio running in KVM tool against a 2G file located
> in /dev/shm. Here is a summary of the results:
>
> Before:
> write_iops_seq
> write: io=1409.8MB, bw=144217KB/s, iops=36054 , runt= 10010msec
> write_bw_seq
> write: io=7700.0MB, bw=1323.5MB/s, iops=1323 , runt= 5818msec
> read_iops_seq
> read : io=1453.7MB, bw=148672KB/s, iops=37168 , runt= 10012msec
> read_bw_seq
> read : io=7700.0MB, bw=1882.7MB/s, iops=1882 , runt= 4090msec
> write_iops_rand
> write: io=1266.4MB, bw=129479KB/s, iops=32369 , runt= 10015msec
> write_bw_rand
> write: io=7539.0MB, bw=1106.1MB/s, iops=1106 , runt= 6811msec
> read_iops_rand
> read : io=1373.3MB, bw=140475KB/s, iops=35118 , runt= 10010msec
> read_bw_rand
> read : io=7539.0MB, bw=1314.4MB/s, iops=1314 , runt= 5736msec
> readwrite_iops_seq
> read : io=726172KB, bw=72292KB/s, iops=18072 , runt= 10045msec
> write: io=726460KB, bw=72321KB/s, iops=18080 , runt= 10045msec
> readwrite_bw_seq
> read : io=3856.0MB, bw=779574KB/s, iops=761 , runt= 5065msec
> write: io=3844.0MB, bw=777148KB/s, iops=758 , runt= 5065msec
> readwrite_iops_rand
> read : io=701780KB, bw=70094KB/s, iops=17523 , runt= 10012msec
> write: io=706120KB, bw=70527KB/s, iops=17631 , runt= 10012msec
> readwrite_bw_rand
> read : io=3705.0MB, bw=601446KB/s, iops=587 , runt= 6308msec
> write: io=3834.0MB, bw=622387KB/s, iops=607 , runt= 6308msec
>
> After:
> write_iops_seq
> write: io=1591.4MB, bw=162626KB/s, iops=40656 , runt= 10020msec
> write_bw_seq
> write: io=7700.0MB, bw=1276.4MB/s, iops=1276 , runt= 6033msec
> read_iops_seq
> read : io=1615.7MB, bw=164680KB/s, iops=41170 , runt= 10046msec
> read_bw_seq
> read : io=7700.0MB, bw=1407.1MB/s, iops=1407 , runt= 5469msec
> write_iops_rand
> write: io=1243.1MB, bw=126304KB/s, iops=31575 , runt= 10085msec
> write_bw_rand
> write: io=7539.0MB, bw=1206.3MB/s, iops=1206 , runt= 6250msec
> read_iops_rand
> read : io=1533.1MB, bw=156795KB/s, iops=39198 , runt= 10018msec
> read_bw_rand
> read : io=7539.0MB, bw=1413.7MB/s, iops=1413 , runt= 5333msec
> readwrite_iops_seq
> read : io=819124KB, bw=81790KB/s, iops=20447 , runt= 10015msec
> write: io=823136KB, bw=82190KB/s, iops=20547 , runt= 10015msec
> readwrite_bw_seq
> read : io=3913.0MB, bw=704946KB/s, iops=688 , runt= 5684msec
> write: io=3787.0MB, bw=682246KB/s, iops=666 , runt= 5684msec
> readwrite_iops_rand
> read : io=802148KB, bw=80159KB/s, iops=20039 , runt= 10007msec
> write: io=801192KB, bw=80063KB/s, iops=20015 , runt= 10007msec
> readwrite_bw_rand
> read : io=3731.0MB, bw=677762KB/s, iops=661 , runt= 5637msec
> write: io=3808.0MB, bw=691750KB/s, iops=675 , runt= 5637msec
>
> --
>
> Sasha.
>
>

--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-21 09:19    [W:0.098 / U:37.628 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site