On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 18:23 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > This is the second version of > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=119933628210006&w=2 > > I gave up once, but I found that the performance loss is negligible > (within 1%) by using kmem_cache_alloc instead of mempool. > > I use scsi_debug with fake_rw=1 and disktest (DIO reads with 8 > threads) again: > > scsi-misc (slub) | 486.9 MB/s IOPS 124652.9/s > dynamic sense buf (slub) | 483.2 MB/s IOPS 123704.1/s > > scsi-misc (slab) | 467.0 MB/s IOPS 119544.3/s > dynamic sense buf (slab) | 468.7 MB/s IOPS 119986.0/s > > The results are the averages of three runs with a server using two > dual-core 1.60 GHz Xeon processors with DDR2 memory. > > > I doubt think that someone will complain about the performance > regression due to this patch. In addition, unlike scsi_debug, the real > LLDs allocate the own data structure per scsi_cmnd so the performance > differences would be smaller (and with the real hard disk overheads). > > Here's the full results: > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/tomo/sense/results.txt Heh, that's one of those good news, bad news things. Certainly good news for you. The bad news for the rest of us is that you just implicated mempool in a performance problem and since they're the core of the SCSI scatterlist allocations and sit at the heart of the critical path in SCSI, we have a potential performance issue in the whole of SCSI. James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
