On 3/1/2023 5:36 AM, Xiao Ni wrote: > On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 7:10 AM Jonathan Derrick > <jonathan.derrick@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Xiao >> >> On 2/26/2023 6:56 PM, Xiao Ni wrote: >>> Hi Jonathan >>> >>> I did a test in my environment, but I didn't see such a big >>> performance difference. >>> >>> The first environment: >>> All nvme devices have 512 logical size, 512 phy size, and 0 optimal size. Then >>> I used your way to rebuild the kernel >>> /sys/block/nvme0n1/queue/physical_block_size 512 >>> /sys/block/nvme0n1/queue/optimal_io_size 4096 >>> cat /sys/block/nvme0n1/queue/logical_block_size 512 >>> >>> without the patch set >>> write: IOPS=68.0k, BW=266MiB/s (279MB/s)(15.6GiB/60001msec); 0 zone resets >>> with the patch set >>> write: IOPS=69.1k, BW=270MiB/s (283MB/s)(15.8GiB/60001msec); 0 zone resets >>> >>> The second environment: >>> The nvme devices' opt size are 4096. So I don't need to rebuild the kernel. >>> /sys/block/nvme0n1/queue/logical_block_size >>> /sys/block/nvme0n1/queue/physical_block_size >>> /sys/block/nvme0n1/queue/optimal_io_size >>> >>> without the patch set >>> write: IOPS=51.6k, BW=202MiB/s (212MB/s)(11.8GiB/60001msec); 0 zone resets >>> with the patch set >>> write: IOPS=53.5k, BW=209MiB/s (219MB/s)(12.2GiB/60001msec); 0 zone resets >>> >> Sounds like your devices may not have latency issues at sub-optimal sizes. >> Can you provide biosnoop traces with and without patches? >> >> Still, 'works fine for me' is generally not a reason to reject the patches. > > Yes, I can. I tried to install the biosnoop in fedora38 but it failed. > These are the rpm packages I've installed: > bcc-tools-0.25.0-1.fc38.x86_64 > bcc-0.25.0-1.fc38.x86_64 > python3-bcc-0.25.0-1.fc38.noarch > > Are there other packages that I need to install? > I've had issues with the packaged versions as well Best to install from source: https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/ https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/blob/master/INSTALL.md#fedora---source > Regards > Xiao >
