On 11/29/18 6:18 PM, Tom Talpey wrote:
On 11/29/2018 8:39 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
On 11/28/18 5:59 AM, Tom Talpey wrote:
On 11/27/2018 9:52 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
On 11/27/18 5:21 PM, Tom Talpey wrote:
On 11/21/2018 5:06 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
On 11/21/18 8:49 AM, Tom Talpey wrote:
On 11/21/2018 1:09 AM, John Hubbard wrote:
On 11/19/18 10:57 AM, Tom Talpey wrote:
[...]
I'm super-limited here this week hardware-wise and have not been able
to try testing with the patched kernel.
I was able to compare my earlier quick test with a Bionic 4.15 kernel
(400K IOPS) against a similar 4.20rc3 kernel, and the rate dropped to
~_375K_ IOPS. Which I found perhaps troubling. But it was only a quick
test, and without your change.
So just to double check (again): you are running fio with these parameters,
right?
[reader]
direct=1
ioengine=libaio
blocksize=4096
size=1g
numjobs=1
rw=read
iodepth=64
Correct, I copy/pasted these directly. I also ran with size=10g because
the 1g provides a really small sample set.
There was one other difference, your results indicated fio 3.3 was used.
My Bionic install has fio 3.1. I don't find that relevant because our
goal is to compare before/after, which I haven't done yet.
OK, the 50 MB/s was due to my particular .config. I had some expensive debug options
set in mm, fs and locking subsystems. Turning those off, I'm back up to the rated
speed of the Samsung NVMe device, so now we should have a clearer picture of the
performance that real users will see.
Oh, good! I'm especially glad because I was having a heck of a time
reconfiguring the one machine I have available for this.
Continuing on, then: running a before and after test, I don't see any significant
difference in the fio results:
Excerpting from below:
Baseline 4.20.0-rc3 (commit f2ce1065e767), as before:
read: IOPS=193k, BW=753MiB/s (790MB/s)(1024MiB/1360msec)
cpu : usr=16.26%, sys=48.05%, ctx=251258, majf=0, minf=73
vs
With patches applied:
read: IOPS=193k, BW=753MiB/s (790MB/s)(1024MiB/1360msec)
cpu : usr=16.26%, sys=48.05%, ctx=251258, majf=0, minf=73
Perfect results, not CPU limited, and full IOPS.
Curiously identical, so I trust you've checked that you measured
both targets, but if so, I say it's good.
Argh, copy-paste error in the email. The real "before" is ever so slightly
better, at 194K IOPS and 759 MB/s:
$ fio ./experimental-fio.conf
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=1715: Thu Nov 29 17:07:09 2018
read: IOPS=194k, BW=759MiB/s (795MB/s)(1024MiB/1350msec)
slat (nsec): min=1245, max=2812.7k, avg=1538.03, stdev=5519.61
clat (usec): min=148, max=755, avg=326.85, stdev=18.13
lat (usec): min=150, max=3483, avg=328.41, stdev=19.53
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 322], 5.00th=[ 326], 10.00th=[ 326], 20.00th=[ 326],
| 30.00th=[ 326], 40.00th=[ 326], 50.00th=[ 326], 60.00th=[ 326],
| 70.00th=[ 326], 80.00th=[ 326], 90.00th=[ 326], 95.00th=[ 326],
| 99.00th=[ 355], 99.50th=[ 537], 99.90th=[ 553], 99.95th=[ 553],
| 99.99th=[ 619]
bw ( KiB/s): min=767816, max=783096, per=99.84%, avg=775456.00, stdev=10804.59, samples=2
iops : min=191954, max=195774, avg=193864.00, stdev=2701.15, samples=2
lat (usec) : 250=0.09%, 500=99.30%, 750=0.61%, 1000=0.01%
cpu : usr=18.24%, sys=44.77%, ctx=251527, majf=0, minf=73
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=759MiB/s (795MB/s), 759MiB/s-759MiB/s (795MB/s-795MB/s), io=1024MiB (1074MB), run=1350-1350msec
Disk stats (read/write):
nvme0n1: ios=222853/0, merge=0/0, ticks=71410/0, in_queue=71935, util=100.00%
thanks,
