On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:38:44PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > The existing CFQ default target_latency results in very poor performance > > for larger numbers of threads doing sequential reads. While this can be > > easily described as a tuning problem for users, it is one that is tricky > > to detect. This patch the default on the assumption that people with access > > to expensive fast storage also know how to tune their IO scheduler. > > > > The following is from tiobench run on a mid-range desktop with a single > > spinning disk. > > > > 3.16.0-rc1 3.16.0-rc1 3.0.0 > > vanilla cfq600 vanilla > > Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-1 121.88 ( 0.00%) 121.60 ( -0.23%) 134.59 ( 10.42%) > > Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-2 101.99 ( 0.00%) 102.35 ( 0.36%) 122.59 ( 20.20%) > > Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-4 97.42 ( 0.00%) 99.71 ( 2.35%) 114.78 ( 17.82%) > > Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-8 83.39 ( 0.00%) 90.39 ( 8.39%) 100.14 ( 20.09%) > > Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-16 68.90 ( 0.00%) 77.29 ( 12.18%) 81.64 ( 18.50%) > > Did you test any workloads other than this? dd tests were inconclusive due to high variability. The dbench results hadn't come through but regression tests there indicate that it has regressed for high numbers of clients. I know sequential reads of benchmarks like bonnie++ have also regressed but I have not reverified the results yet. > Also, what normal workload > has 8 or more threads doing sequential reads? (That's an honest > question.) > File servers, mail servers, streaming media servers with multiple users, multi-user systems -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
