Re: CFQ idling kills I/O performance on ext4 with blkio cgroup controller

[Paolo Valente]

> Il giorno 22 mag 2019, alle ore 11:02, Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
> 
> On 5/22/19 1:05 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Il giorno 22 mag 2019, alle ore 00:51, Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
>>> 
>>> [ Resending this mail with a dropbox link to the traces (instead
>>> of a file attachment), since it didn't go through the last time. ]
>>> 
>>> On 5/21/19 10:38 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> So, instead of only sending me a trace, could you please:
>>>>> 1) apply this new patch on top of the one I attached in my previous email
>>>>> 2) repeat your test and report results
>>>> 
>>>> One last thing (I swear!): as you can see from my script, I tested the
>>>> case low_latency=0 so far.  So please, for the moment, do your test
>>>> with low_latency=0.  You find the whole path to this parameter in,
>>>> e.g., my script.
>>>> 
>>> No problem! :) Thank you for sharing patches for me to test!
>>> 
>>> I have good news :) Your patch improves the throughput significantly
>>> when low_latency = 0.
>>> 
>>> Without any patch:
>>> 
>>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/test.img bs=512 count=10000 oflag=dsync
>>> 10000+0 records in
>>> 10000+0 records out
>>> 5120000 bytes (5.1 MB, 4.9 MiB) copied, 58.0915 s, 88.1 kB/s
>>> 
>>> 
>>> With both patches applied:
>>> 
>>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/test0.img bs=512 count=10000 oflag=dsync
>>> 10000+0 records in
>>> 10000+0 records out
>>> 5120000 bytes (5.1 MB, 4.9 MiB) copied, 3.87487 s, 1.3 MB/s
>>> 
>>> The performance is still not as good as mq-deadline (which achieves
>>> 1.6 MB/s), but this is a huge improvement for BFQ nonetheless!
>>> 
>>> A tarball with the trace output from the 2 scenarios you requested,
>>> one with only the debug patch applied (trace-bfq-add-logs-and-BUG_ONs),
>>> and another with both patches applied (trace-bfq-boost-injection) is
>>> available here:
>>> 
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pdf07vi7afido7e/bfq-traces.tar.gz?dl=0
>>> 
>> 
>> Hi Srivatsa,
>> I've seen the bugzilla you've created.  I'm a little confused on how
>> to better proceed.  Shall we move this discussion to the bugzilla, or
>> should we continue this discussion here, where it has started, and
>> then update the bugzilla?
>> 
> 
> Let's continue here on LKML itself.

Just done :)

> The only reason I created the
> bugzilla entry is to attach the tarball of the traces, assuming
> that it would allow me to upload a 20 MB file (since email attachment
> didn't work). But bugzilla's file restriction is much smaller than
> that, so it didn't work out either, and I resorted to using dropbox.
> So we don't need the bugzilla entry anymore; I might as well close it
> to avoid confusion.
> 

No no, don't close it: it can reach people that don't use LKML.  We
just have to remember to report back at the end of this.  BTW, I also
think that the bug is incorrectly filed against 5.1, while all these
tests and results concern 5.2-rcX.

Thanks,
Paolo

> Regards,
> Srivatsa
> VMware Photon OS

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP