[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/26] AIO performance improvements/cleanups, v2
    On 2012-12-15 10:25, Kent Overstreet wrote:
    > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 08:35:53AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
    >> On 2012-12-14 03:26, Jack Wang wrote:
    >>> 2012/12/14 Jens Axboe <>:
    >>>> On Mon, Dec 03 2012, Kent Overstreet wrote:
    >>>>> Last posting:
    >>>>> Changes since the last posting should all be noted in the individual
    >>>>> patch descriptions.
    >>>>> * Zach pointed out the aio_read_evt() patch was calling functions that
    >>>>> could sleep in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state, that patch is rewritten.
    >>>>> * Ben pointed out some synchronize_rcu() usage was problematic,
    >>>>> converted it to call_rcu()
    >>>>> * The flush_dcache_page() patch is new
    >>>>> * Changed the "use cancellation list lazily" patch so as to remove
    >>>>> ki_flags from struct kiocb.
    >>>> Kent, I ran a few tests, and the below patches still don't seem as fast
    >>>> as the approach I took. To keep it fair, I used your aio branch and
    >>>> applied by dio speedups too. As a sanity check, I ran with your branch
    >>>> alone as well. The quick results below - kaio is kent-aio, just your
    >>>> branch. kaio-dio is with the direct IO speedups too. jaio is my branch,
    >>>> which already has the dio changes too.
    >>>> Devices Branch IOPS
    >>>> 1 kaio ~915K
    >>>> 1 kaio-dio ~930K
    >>>> 1 jaio ~1220K
    >>>> 6 kaio ~3050K
    >>>> 6 kaio-dio ~3080K
    >>>> 6 jaio 3500K
    >>>> The box runs out of CPU driving power, which is why it doesn't scale
    >>>> linearly, otherwise I know that jaio at least does. It's basically
    >>>> completion limited for the 6 device test at the moment.
    >>>> I'll run some profiling tomorrow morning and get you some better
    >>>> results. Just thought I'd share these at least.
    >>>> --
    >>>> Jens Axboe
    >>> A really good performance, woo.
    >>> I think the device tested is really fast PCIe SSD builded by fusionio
    >>> with fusionio in house block driver?
    >> It is pci-e flash storage, but it is not fusion-io.
    >>> any compare number with current mainline?
    >> Sure, I should have included that. Here's the table again, this time
    >> with mainline as well.
    >> Devices Branch IOPS
    >> 1 mainline ~870K
    >> 1 kaio ~915K
    >> 1 kaio-dio ~930K
    >> 1 jaio ~1220K
    >> 6 kaio ~3050K
    >> 6 kaio-dio ~3080K
    >> 6 jaio ~3500K
    >> 6 mainline ~2850K
    > Cool, thanks for the numbers!
    > I suspect the difference is due to contention on the ringbuffer,
    > completion side. You didn't enable my batched completion stuff, did you?

    No, haven't tried the batching yet.

    > I suspect the numbers would look quite a bit different with that,
    > based on my own profiling. If the driver for the device you're testing
    > on is open source, I'd be happy to do the conversion (it's a 5 minute
    > job).

    Knock yourself out - I already took a quick look at it, and conversion
    should be pretty simple. It's the mtip32xx driver, it's in the kernel. I
    would suggest getting rid of the ->async_callback() (since it's always
    bio_endio()) since that'll make it cleaner.

    > Also, I don't think our approaches really conflict - it's been awhile

    Completely agree. I split my patches up a bit yesterday, and then I took
    a look at your series. There's a bit of overlap between the two, but
    really most of it would be useful together. You can see the (bit more)
    split series here:;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/aio-dio

    > since I looked at your patch but you're getting rid of the aio
    > ringbuffer and using a linked list instead, right? My batched completion
    > stuff should still benefit that case.

    Yes, I make the ring interface optional. Basically you tell aio to use
    the ring or not at io_queue_init() time. If you don't care about the
    ring, we can use a lockless list for the completions.

    You completely remove the cancel, I just make it optional for the gadget
    case. I'm fine with either of them, though I did not look at your usb
    change in detail. If it's clean, I suspect we should just kill cancel
    completion as you did.

    > Though - hrm, I'd have expected getting rid of the cancellation linked
    > list to make a bigger difference and both our patchsets do that.

    The machine in question runs out of oomph, which is hampering the
    results. I should have it beefed up next week. It's running E5-2630
    right now, will move to E5-2690. I think that should make the results

    > What device are you testing on, and what's your fio script? I may just
    > have to buy some hardware so I can test this myself.

    Pretty basic script, it's attached. Probably could eek more out of the
    system, but it's been fine for just basic apples-to-apples comparison.
    I'm using 6x p320h for this test case.

    Jens Axboe







     \ /
      Last update: 2012-12-15 11:21    [W:0.038 / U:0.256 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site