lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: splice/vmsplice performance test results
On Tue, Nov 21 2006, Jim Schutt wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 14:54 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 20 2006, Jim Schutt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 09:24 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 20 2006, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 17 2006, Jim Schutt wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 21:25 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16 2006, Jim Schutt wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My test program can do one of the following:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > send data:
> > > > > > > > A) read() from file into buffer, write() buffer into socket
> > > > > > > > B) mmap() section of file, write() that into socket, munmap()
> > > > > > > > C) splice() from file to pipe, splice() from pipe to socket
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > receive data:
> > > > > > > > 1) read() from socket into buffer, write() buffer into file
> > > > > > > > 2) ftruncate() to extend file, mmap() new extent, read()
> > > > > > > > from socket into new extent, munmap()
> > > > > > > > 3) read() from socket into buffer, vmsplice() buffer to
> > > > > > > > pipe, splice() pipe to file (using the double-buffer trick)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Here's the results, using:
> > > > > > > > - 64 KiB buffer, mmap extent, or splice
> > > > > > > > - 1 MiB TCP window
> > > > > > > > - 16 GiB data sent across network
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A) from /dev/zero -> 1) to /dev/null : 857 MB/s (6.86 Gb/s)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A) from file -> 1) to /dev/null : 472 MB/s (3.77 Gb/s)
> > > > > > > > B) from file -> 1) to /dev/null : 366 MB/s (2.93 Gb/s)
> > > > > > > > C) from file -> 1) to /dev/null : 854 MB/s (6.83 Gb/s)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A) from /dev/zero -> 1) to file : 375 MB/s (3.00 Gb/s)
> > > > > > > > A) from /dev/zero -> 2) to file : 150 MB/s (1.20 Gb/s)
> > > > > > > > A) from /dev/zero -> 3) to file : 286 MB/s (2.29 Gb/s)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I had (naively) hoped the read/vmsplice/splice combination would
> > > > > > > > run at the same speed I can write a file, i.e. at about 450 MB/s
> > > > > > > > on my setup. Do any of my numbers seem bogus, so I should look
> > > > > > > > harder at my test program?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could be read-ahead playing in here, I'd have to take a closer look at
> > > > > > > the generated io patterns to say more about that. Any chance you can
> > > > > > > capture iostat or blktrace info for such a run to compare that goes to
> > > > > > > the disk?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've attached a file with iostat and vmstat results for the case
> > > > > > where I read from a socket and write a file, vs. the case where I
> > > > > > read from a socket and use vmsplice/splice to write the file.
> > > > > > (Sorry it's not inline - my mailer locks up when I try to
> > > > > > include the file.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would you still like blktrace info for these two cases?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I think the iostat data is fine, I don't think the blktrace info
> > > > > would give me any more insight on this problem. I'll set up a test to
> > > > > reproduce it here, looks like the write out path could be optimized some
> > > > > more.
> > >
> > > Great, let me know if you need testing from me.
> >
> > I found some suboptimal behaviour in your test app - you don't check for
> > short reads and splice would really like things to be aligned for the
> > best performance. I did some testing with the original app here, and I
> > get 114.769MB/s for read-from-socket -> write-to-file and 109.878MB/s
> > for read-from-socket -> vmsplice-splice-to-file. If I fix up the read to
> > always get the full buffer size before doing the vmsplice+splice, the
> > performance is up to the same as the read/write.
>
> Sorry - I had assumed my network was so much faster than my
> disk subsystem I'd never get a short read from a socket except at
> the end of the transfer. Pretty silly of me, in hindsight.

That may be true if you are doing sync io, but the tests here do not.
Hence queueing can be much quicker than you can pull the data off the
net.

> I can see now how even one short read early would screw up
> the alignment for splicing into a file for the rest of the
> transfer, right?

Yep, it would hurt a lot. As your numbers show :-)

> Here's some new results:
>
> Run w/check for short read on socket in vmsplice case:
> - /dev/zero -> /dev/null w/ socket read + file write: 1130 MB/s
> (Man, my network is running fast today. I don't know why.)
> - /dev/zero -> /dev/null w/ socket read + vmsplice/splice: 1028 MB/s
> - /dev/zero -> file w/ socket read + vmsplice/splice: 336 MB/s
>
> Rerun w/original:
> - /dev/zero -> /dev/null w/ socket read + vmsplice/splice: 1026 MB/s
> - /dev/zero -> file w/ socket read + vmsplice/splice: 285 MB/s
> - /dev/zero -> file w/ socket read + file write: 382 MB/s
>
> So I was losing 50 MB/s due to short reads on the socket
> screwing up the alignment for splice. Sorry to waste your
> time on that.
>
> But, it looks like socket-read + file-write is still ~50 MB/s
> faster than socket-read + vmsplice/splice (assuming I didn't
> screw up my short read fix - see patch below). I assume that's
> still unexpected?

Maybe unexpected is not the right word, but it certainly would be nice
if it was faster. As I originally mentioned, your test case of socket
read + vmsplice + splice is not the best way to pull data off the
network, but it's the best until splice-from-socket works. Your zero ->
null transfer doesn't seem to take a large hit becaue of that, so it's
still very surprising that we lose 50MB/s on real io performance.

> > Since it's doing buffered writes, the results do vary a lot though (as
> > you also indicated). A raw /dev/zero -> /dev/null is 3 times faster with
> > vmsplice/splice.
> >
>
> Hmmm. Is it worth me trying to do some sort of kernel
> profiling to see if there is anything unexpected with
> my setup? If so, do you have a preference as to what
> I would use?

Not sure that profiling would be that interesting, as the problem
probably lies in where we are _not_ spending the time. But it certainly
can't hurt. Try to oprofile the kernel for a 10-20 sec interval while
the test is running. Do 3 such runs for the two test cases
(write-to-file, vmsplice/splice-to-file).

See the bottom of Documentation/basic_profiling.txt for how to profile
the kernel easily.

> Here's how I fixed my app to fix up (I think) short reads.
> Maybe I missed your point?

That looks about right.

--
Jens Axboe

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-11-22 10:01    [W:0.042 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site