On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 1:57 AM Jonathan Derrick <jonathan.derrick@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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 > Hi Jonathan I did a test without modifying phys_size and opt_size. And I picked up a part of the result: 0.172142 md0_raid10 2094 nvme1n1 W 1225496264 4096 0.01 0.172145 md0_raid10 2094 nvme0n1 W 1225496264 4096 0.01 0.172161 md0_raid10 2094 nvme3n1 W 16 4096 0.01 0.172164 md0_raid10 2094 nvme2n1 W 16 4096 0.01 0.172166 md0_raid10 2094 nvme1n1 W 16 4096 0.01 0.172168 md0_raid10 2094 nvme0n1 W 16 4096 0.01 0.172178 md0_raid10 2094 nvme3n1 W 633254624 4096 0.01 0.172180 md0_raid10 2094 nvme2n1 W 633254624 4096 0.01 0.172196 md0_raid10 2094 nvme3n1 W 16 4096 0.01 0.172199 md0_raid10 2094 nvme2n1 W 16 4096 0.01 0.172201 md0_raid10 2094 nvme1n1 W 16 4096 0.01 0.172203 md0_raid10 2094 nvme0n1 W 16 4096 0.01 0.172213 md0_raid10 2094 nvme3n1 W 1060251672 4096 0.01 0.172215 md0_raid10 2094 nvme2n1 W 1060251672 4096 0.01 The last column always shows 0.01. Is that the reason I can't see the performance improvement? What do you think if I use ssd or hdds? Best Regards Xiao
