[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Performance regression in scsi sequential throughput (iozone) due to "e084b - page-allocator: preserve PFN ordering when __GFP_COLD is set"

Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 03:01:16PM +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>> Mel Gorman wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 04:51:10PM +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>>>> I'll keep the old thread below as reference.
>>>> After taking a round of ensuring reproducibility and a pile of new
>>>> measurements I now can come back with several new insights.
>>>> FYI - I'm now running iozone triplets (4, then 8, then 16 parallel
>>>> threads) with sequential read load and all that 4 times to find
>>>> potential noise. But since I changed to that load instead of random
>>>> read wit hone thread and ensuring the most memory is cleared (sync +
>>>> echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches + a few sleeps) . The noise is now
>>>> down <2%. For detailed questions about the setup feel free to ask me
>>>> directly as I won't flood this thread too much with such details.
>>> Is there any chance you have a driver script for the test that you could send
>>> me? I'll then try reproducing based on that script and see what happens. I'm
>>> not optimistic I'll be able to reproduce the problem because I think
>>> it's specific to your setup but you never know.
>> I don't have one as it runs in a bigger automated test environment, but
>> it is easy enough to write down something comparable.
> I'd appreciate it, thanks.

Testing of your two patches starts in a few minutes, thanks in advance.

Here the info how to execute the core of the test - I cross fingers that anyone else can reproduce it that way :-)

I use it in a huge automation framework which takes care of setting up the system, disks, gathering statistics and so on, but it essentially comes down to something simple like that:

# reboot your system with 256m
# attach 16 disks (usually up to 64, but 16 should be enough to show the issue)
# mount your disks at /mnt/subw0, /mnt/subw1, ...
for i in 4 8 16 4 8 16 4 8 16 4 8 16
sync; sleep 10s; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; sleep 2s;
iozone -s 2000m -r 64k -t $i -e -w -R -C -i 0 -F /mnt/subw0 /mnt/subw1 /mnt/subw2 /mnt/subw3 /mnt/subw4 /mnt/subw5 /mnt/subw6 /mnt/subw7 /mnt/subw8 /mnt/subw9 /mnt/subw10 /mnt/subw11 /mnt/subw12 /mnt/subw13 /mnt/subw14 /mnt/subw15
sync; sleep 10s; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; sleep 2s;
iozone -s 2000m -r 64k -t $i -e -w -R -C -i 1 -F /mnt/subw0 /mnt/subw1 /mnt/subw2 /mnt/subw3 /mnt/subw4 /mnt/subw5 /mnt/subw6 /mnt/subw7 /mnt/subw8 /mnt/subw9 /mnt/subw10 /mnt/subw11 /mnt/subw12 /mnt/subw13 /mnt/subw14 /mnt/subw15
# while we could reduce the number of writes to one 16 thread write I use it that way as it is more similar to our original load (makes no difference anyway)


Grüsse / regards, Christian Ehrhardt
IBM Linux Technology Center, Open Virtualization
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-09 07:27    [W:0.195 / U:8.912 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site