lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Bad SSD performance with recent kernels
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 03:22:38PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 08:13 +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:17:38AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
>>> 2012/1/30 Wu Fengguang <wfg@linux.intel.com>:
>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 02:13:51PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>>> Le dimanche 29 janvier 2012 à 19:16 +0800, Wu Fengguang a écrit :

>>>>>> Note that as long as buffered read(2) is used, it makes almost no
>>>>>> difference (well, at least for now) to do "dd bs=128k" or "dd bs=2MB":
>>>>>> the 128kb readahead size will be used underneath to submit read IO.

>>>>> Hmm...

>>>>> # echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ;dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=128k count=32768
>>>>> 32768+0 enregistrements lus
>>>>> 32768+0 enregistrements écrits
>>>>> 4294967296 octets (4,3 GB) copiés, 20,7718 s, 207 MB/s


>>>>> # echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ;dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=2M count=2048
>>>>> 2048+0 enregistrements lus
>>>>> 2048+0 enregistrements écrits
>>>>> 4294967296 octets (4,3 GB) copiés, 27,7824 s, 155 MB/s

>>>> Interesting. Here are my test results:

>>>> root@lkp-nex04 /home/wfg# echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ;dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=128k count=32768
>>>> 32768+0 records in
>>>> 32768+0 records out
>>>> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 19.0121 s, 226 MB/s
>>>> root@lkp-nex04 /home/wfg# echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ;dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=2M count=2048
>>>> 2048+0 records in
>>>> 2048+0 records out
>>>> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 19.0214 s, 226 MB/s

>>>> Maybe the /dev/sda performance bug on your machine is sensitive to timing?
>>> I got similar result:
>>> 128k: 224M/s
>>> 1M: 182M/s

>>> 1M block size is slow, I guess it's CPU related.

>>> And as for the big regression with newer kernel than 2.6.38,
>>> please check if idle=poll helps. CPU idle dramatically impacts
>>> disk performance and even latest cpuidle governor doesn't help
>>> for some CPUs.

>> here are the tests with idle=poll and after switching to 128k
>> (instead of 1M) blocksize (same amount of data transferred)

>> kernel ------------ read /dev/sda -------------
>> --- noop --- - deadline - ---- cfs ---
>> [MB/s] %CPU [MB/s] %CPU [MB/s] %CPU
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> 3.2.2 45.82 3.7 44.85 3.6 45.04 3.4
>> 3.2.2i 45.59 2.3 51.78 2.6 46.03 2.2
>> 3.2.2i128 250.24 20.9 252.68 21.3 250.00 21.6

>> kernel -- write --- ------------------read -----------------
>> --- noop --- --- noop --- - deadline - ---- cfs ---
>> [MB/s] %CPU [MB/s] %CPU [MB/s] %CPU [MB/s] %CPU
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 3.2.2 270.95 42.6 162.36 9.9 162.63 9.9 162.65 10.1
>> 3.2.2i 269.10 41.4 170.82 6.6 171.20 6.6 170.91 6.7
>> 3.2.2i128 270.38 67.7 162.35 10.2 163.01 10.3 162.34 10.7

> What's 3.2.2i and 3.2.2i128?

3.2.2 ...... kernel with default options (bs=1M)
3.2.2i ..... kernel with idle=poll (bs=1M)
3.2.2i128 .. kernel with idle=poll (bs=128k)

> does idle=poll help?

doesn't look like, at least to me ...

HTC,
Herbert
--
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: 2012-01-30 08:39    [W:0.056 / U:13.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site