Re: [PATCH 0/6] RFC v2: mm: gup/dma tracking

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2/4/2019 12:21 AM, john.hubbard@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx>


Performance: here is an fio run on an NVMe drive, using this for the fio
configuration file:

     [reader]
     direct=1
     ioengine=libaio
     blocksize=4096
     size=1g
     numjobs=1
     rw=read
     iodepth=64

reader: (g=0): rw=read, bs=(R) 4096B-4096B, (W) 4096B-4096B, (T) 4096B-4096B, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64
fio-3.3
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1)
reader: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=7011: Sun Feb  3 20:36:51 2019
    read: IOPS=190k, BW=741MiB/s (778MB/s)(1024MiB/1381msec)
     slat (nsec): min=2716, max=57255, avg=4048.14, stdev=1084.10
     clat (usec): min=20, max=12485, avg=332.63, stdev=191.77
      lat (usec): min=22, max=12498, avg=336.72, stdev=192.07
     clat percentiles (usec):
      |  1.00th=[  322],  5.00th=[  322], 10.00th=[  322], 20.00th=[  326],
      | 30.00th=[  326], 40.00th=[  326], 50.00th=[  326], 60.00th=[  326],
      | 70.00th=[  326], 80.00th=[  330], 90.00th=[  330], 95.00th=[  330],
      | 99.00th=[  478], 99.50th=[  717], 99.90th=[ 1074], 99.95th=[ 1090],
      | 99.99th=[12256]

These latencies are concerning. The best results we saw at the end of
November (previous approach) were MUCH flatter. These really start
spiking at three 9's, and are sky-high at four 9's. The "stdev" values
for clat and lat are about 10 times the previous. There's some kind
of serious queuing contention here, that wasn't there in November.

    bw (  KiB/s): min=730152, max=776512, per=99.22%, avg=753332.00, stdev=32781.47, samples=2
    iops        : min=182538, max=194128, avg=188333.00, stdev=8195.37, samples=2
   lat (usec)   : 50=0.01%, 100=0.01%, 250=0.07%, 500=99.26%, 750=0.38%
   lat (usec)   : 1000=0.02%
   lat (msec)   : 2=0.24%, 20=0.02%
   cpu          : usr=15.07%, sys=84.13%, ctx=10, majf=0, minf=74

System CPU 84% is roughly double the November results of 45%. Ouch.

Did you re-run the baseline on the new unpatched base kernel and can
we see the before/after?

Tom.

   IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%, >=64=100.0%
      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=0.1%, >=64=0.0%
      issued rwts: total=262144,0,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0
      latency   : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=64

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
    READ: bw=741MiB/s (778MB/s), 741MiB/s-741MiB/s (778MB/s-778MB/s), io=1024MiB (1074MB), run=1381-1381msec

Disk stats (read/write):
   nvme0n1: ios=216966/0, merge=0/0, ticks=6112/0, in_queue=704, util=91.34%



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux