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. 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. Regards, Srivatsa VMware Photon OS
