> Il giorno 22 mag 2019, alle ore 11:02, Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: > > On 5/22/19 1:05 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: >> >> >>> Il giorno 22 mag 2019, alle ore 00:51, Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: >>> >>> [ Resending this mail with a dropbox link to the traces (instead >>> of a file attachment), since it didn't go through the last time. ] >>> >>> On 5/21/19 10:38 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: >>>> >>>>> So, instead of only sending me a trace, could you please: >>>>> 1) apply this new patch on top of the one I attached in my previous email >>>>> 2) repeat your test and report results >>>> >>>> One last thing (I swear!): as you can see from my script, I tested the >>>> case low_latency=0 so far. So please, for the moment, do your test >>>> with low_latency=0. You find the whole path to this parameter in, >>>> e.g., my script. >>>> >>> No problem! :) Thank you for sharing patches for me to test! >>> >>> I have good news :) Your patch improves the throughput significantly >>> when low_latency = 0. >>> >>> Without any patch: >>> >>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/test.img bs=512 count=10000 oflag=dsync >>> 10000+0 records in >>> 10000+0 records out >>> 5120000 bytes (5.1 MB, 4.9 MiB) copied, 58.0915 s, 88.1 kB/s >>> >>> >>> With both patches applied: >>> >>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/test0.img bs=512 count=10000 oflag=dsync >>> 10000+0 records in >>> 10000+0 records out >>> 5120000 bytes (5.1 MB, 4.9 MiB) copied, 3.87487 s, 1.3 MB/s >>> >>> The performance is still not as good as mq-deadline (which achieves >>> 1.6 MB/s), but this is a huge improvement for BFQ nonetheless! >>> >>> A tarball with the trace output from the 2 scenarios you requested, >>> one with only the debug patch applied (trace-bfq-add-logs-and-BUG_ONs), >>> and another with both patches applied (trace-bfq-boost-injection) is >>> available here: >>> >>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pdf07vi7afido7e/bfq-traces.tar.gz?dl=0 >>> >> >> Hi Srivatsa, >> I've seen the bugzilla you've created. I'm a little confused on how >> to better proceed. Shall we move this discussion to the bugzilla, or >> should we continue this discussion here, where it has started, and >> then update the bugzilla? >> > > Let's continue here on LKML itself. Just done :) > The only reason I created the > bugzilla entry is to attach the tarball of the traces, assuming > that it would allow me to upload a 20 MB file (since email attachment > didn't work). But bugzilla's file restriction is much smaller than > that, so it didn't work out either, and I resorted to using dropbox. > So we don't need the bugzilla entry anymore; I might as well close it > to avoid confusion. > No no, don't close it: it can reach people that don't use LKML. We just have to remember to report back at the end of this. BTW, I also think that the bug is incorrectly filed against 5.1, while all these tests and results concern 5.2-rcX. Thanks, Paolo > Regards, > Srivatsa > VMware Photon OS
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
