I might be wrong and did not understand your point well but I would do this to satisfy the requirement: - Remove the stonewalls and let all four jobs run in parallel with the same speed, sequential read and writes will hit the same block, random read and writes would also hit the same block if we specify randseed. - use thread=1 to eliminate creation of multiple process using fork and keep all the jobs in a single process with multiple thread. --Alireza On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 3:50 AM, danielabuggie . <danielabuggie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sorry, fio just doesn't work that way. For example, even if you only > did (#1) it will spawn 2 processes as fio forks a worker for every > job. So any way you run it, you will get multiple processes with fio. > > Therefore, I suspect you would need to either reconsider the > single-process requirement or look elsewhere. Personally, I'd > seriously consider the former as I don't see there being much of a > quantifiable difference between 1 process and 3-4 when your looking at > an I/O tester. > > Daniel > > > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:57 AM, john gong <johngong0791@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> What am i doing is to simulate the ANTUTU benchmark on android 5.1. >> We learned that ANTUTU benchmark do the below things sequentially in >> the same process. >> 1) first sequentially write to a file with bs=8KB. the file's size is 16M. >> 2) after write finish, then read the same file from the begin to the >> end with bs=4KB. >> 3) after 2) finish, then sequentially overwrite to the same file with >> bs=4KB, total size is 16M too, >> and every 4096 requests do a fsync. >> >> all done with in the same process. >> I have construct one job file to simulate that process. like: >> --cut-- >> [antutu_io_first_write] >> ioengine=sync >> size=16m >> numjobs=1 >> bs=8k >> ba=4k >> rw=write >> gtod_reduce=1 >> disk_util=1 >> name=antutu_io_first_write >> filename=/data/antutu_test >> stonewall >> [antutu_io_first_read] >> ioengine=sync >> size=16m >> numjobs=1 >> bs=8k >> ba=4k >> rw=read >> gtod_reduce=1 >> disk_util=1 >> name=antutu_io_first_read >> filename=/data/antutu_test >> stonewall >> [antutu_io_second_write] >> ioengine=sync >> size=16m >> numjobs=1 >> bs=4k >> ba=4k >> rw=write >> gtod_reduce=1 >> disk_util=1 >> name=antutu_io_second_write >> filename=/data/antutu_test >> fsync=4096 >> stonewall >> --cut-- >> >> >> But result is: >> --cut-- >> antutu_io_first_write: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1451: Sat Feb >> 4 20:05:04 2012 >> write: io=16384KB, bw=54613KB/s, iops=6826, runt= 300msec >> cpu : usr=3.33%, sys=93.33%, ctx=13, majf=0, minf=25 >> IO depths : 1=100.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> issued : total=r=0/w=2048/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=1 >> antutu_io_first_read: (groupid=1, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1452: Sat Feb >> 4 20:05:04 2012 >> read : io=16384KB, bw=287439KB/s, iops=35929, runt= 57msec >> cpu : usr=17.86%, sys=53.57%, ctx=7, majf=0, minf=27 >> IO depths : 1=100.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> issued : total=r=2048/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=1 >> antutu_io_second_write: (groupid=2, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1453: Sat Feb >> 4 20:05:04 2012 >> write: io=16384KB, bw=45011KB/s, iops=11252, runt= 364msec >> cpu : usr=16.48%, sys=74.18%, ctx=34, majf=0, minf=24 >> IO depths : 1=100.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> issued : total=r=0/w=4096/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=1 >> --cut-- >> >> Obviously it can not satisfy my demand. It forks 3 processes( >> pid=1451, pid=1452, pid=1453) to finish these jobs. >> I want to do all these actions in just one process. >> >> Any clue？ >> >> Thanks in advance! >> >> John Gong >> >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 3:00 PM, danielabuggie . <danielabuggie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Unfortunately, I don't think there is an option then that will >>> precisely do what you are asking then. Perhaps if you clarify more >>> about what you are looking to test someone can help you approximate it >>> better. >>> >>> Some suggestions though for you to look into: >>> * Use a randrw process with percentage_random set to an appropriate >>> value to control roughly how many blocks would be read before seeking. >>> >>> * Also a randrw process with bssplit set to a mix of small and large >>> blocks sizes would make "random" IO intermittently more sequential. >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:08 PM, john gong <johngong0791@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> hi Daniel, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your suggestion. >>>> >>>> "stonewall" can not solve my problem. "stonewall" just enforce the >>>> processes which do the exact jobs run sequentially. >>>> But what I want to do is that all things be done in one process, not >>>> with one jobfile. >>>> >>>> B.R. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:21 PM, danielabuggie . <danielabuggie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> So you want to run them all with one jobfile, but sequentially and not >>>>> simultaneously? >>>>> >>>>> In that case, stonewall is the option you want to add. >>>>> >>>>> Daniel >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 9:02 PM, john gong <johngong0791@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> hello Kulkarni & Alireza, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your attentions. >>>>>> tiobench-example.fio will spawn 16 processes, each job consumes 4 processes. >>>>>> But what i want is all things defined in the job description be done >>>>>> in one process. >>>>>> For example, executes below job description >>>>>> --cut-- >>>>>> [global] >>>>>> engine=sync >>>>>> filename=/data/test >>>>>> size=100m >>>>>> [job1] >>>>>> rw=write >>>>>> stonewall >>>>>> [job2] >>>>>> rw=read >>>>>> stonewall >>>>>> [job3] >>>>>> rw=randwrite >>>>>> stonewall >>>>>> [job4] >>>>>> rw=randread >>>>>> stonewall >>>>>> --cut-- >>>>>> >>>>>> This job description can satisfy the demand of sequential execute, but >>>>>> they will be done in 4 different processes. >>>>>> What i want is all things be done in the same process sequentilly. >>>>>> >>>>>> B.R. >>>>>> >>>>>> John.Gong >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Kulkarni, Vasu <vasu.kulkarni@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> Here's one example with 4 jobs which you can customize >>>>>>> https://github.com/axboe/fio/blob/master/examples/tiobench-example.fio >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 6:55 PM, john gong <johngong0791@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>> hello All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I wonder whether FIO can do below things in the same job? >>>>>>>> 1) sequential write >>>>>>>> 2) sequential read >>>>>>>> 3) randomly write >>>>>>>> 4) randomly read >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Namely FIO do not need to spawn other processes to do the things respectively. >>>>>>>> All things will be done in the same process. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks in advance! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John.Gong >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in >>>>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> A ship is safer in a harbor. But that's not what ships are built for. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in >>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
