lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: CFQ idling kills I/O performance on ext4 with blkio cgroup controller
Date


> Il giorno 21 mag 2019, alle ore 00:45, Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu> ha scritto:
>
> On 5/20/19 3:19 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Il giorno 18 mag 2019, alle ore 22:50, Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu> ha scritto:
>>>
>>> On 5/18/19 11:39 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>>> I've addressed these issues in my last batch of improvements for BFQ,
>>>> which landed in the upcoming 5.2. If you give it a try, and still see
>>>> the problem, then I'll be glad to reproduce it, and hopefully fix it
>>>> for you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Paolo,
>>>
>>> Thank you for looking into this!
>>>
>>> I just tried current mainline at commit 72cf0b07, but unfortunately
>>> didn't see any improvement:
>>>
>>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/test.img bs=512 count=10000 oflag=dsync
>>>
>>> With mq-deadline, I get:
>>>
>>> 5120000 bytes (5.1 MB, 4.9 MiB) copied, 3.90981 s, 1.3 MB/s
>>>
>>> With bfq, I get:
>>> 5120000 bytes (5.1 MB, 4.9 MiB) copied, 84.8216 s, 60.4 kB/s
>>>
>>
>> Hi Srivatsa,
>> thanks for reproducing this on mainline. I seem to have reproduced a
>> bonsai-tree version of this issue. Before digging into the block
>> trace, I'd like to ask you for some feedback.
>>
>> First, in my test, the total throughput of the disk happens to be
>> about 20 times as high as that enjoyed by dd, regardless of the I/O
>> scheduler. I guess this massive overhead is normal with dsync, but
>> I'd like know whether it is about the same on your side. This will
>> help me understand whether I'll actually be analyzing about the same
>> problem as yours.
>>
>
> Do you mean to say the throughput obtained by dd'ing directly to the
> block device (bypassing the filesystem)?

No no, I mean simply what follows.

1) in one terminal:
[root@localhost tmp]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/test.img bs=512 count=10000 oflag=dsync
10000+0 record dentro
10000+0 record fuori
5120000 bytes (5,1 MB, 4,9 MiB) copied, 14,6892 s, 349 kB/s

2) In a second terminal, while the dd is in progress in the first
terminal:
$ iostat -tmd /dev/sda 3
Linux 5.1.0+ (localhost.localdomain) 20/05/2019 _x86_64_ (2 CPU)

...
20/05/2019 11:40:17
Device tps MB_read/s MB_wrtn/s MB_read MB_wrtn
sda 2288,00 0,00 9,77 0 29

20/05/2019 11:40:20
Device tps MB_read/s MB_wrtn/s MB_read MB_wrtn
sda 2325,33 0,00 9,93 0 29

20/05/2019 11:40:23
Device tps MB_read/s MB_wrtn/s MB_read MB_wrtn
sda 2351,33 0,00 10,05 0 30
...

As you can see, the overall throughput (~10 MB/s) is more than 20
times as high as the dd throughput (~350 KB/s). But the dd is the
only source of I/O.

Do you also see such a huge difference?

Thanks,
Paolo

> That does give me a 20x
> speedup with bs=512, but much more with a bigger block size (achieving
> a max throughput of about 110 MB/s).
>
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdc bs=512 count=10000 conv=fsync
> 10000+0 records in
> 10000+0 records out
> 5120000 bytes (5.1 MB, 4.9 MiB) copied, 0.15257 s, 33.6 MB/s
>
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdc bs=4k count=10000 conv=fsync
> 10000+0 records in
> 10000+0 records out
> 40960000 bytes (41 MB, 39 MiB) copied, 0.395081 s, 104 MB/s
>
> I'm testing this on a Toshiba MG03ACA1 (1TB) hard disk.
>
>> Second, the commands I used follow. Do they implement your test case
>> correctly?
>>
>> [root@localhost tmp]# mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio/testgrp
>> [root@localhost tmp]# echo $BASHPID > /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio/testgrp/cgroup.procs
>> [root@localhost tmp]# cat /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler
>> [mq-deadline] bfq none
>> [root@localhost tmp]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/test.img bs=512 count=10000 oflag=dsync
>> 10000+0 record dentro
>> 10000+0 record fuori
>> 5120000 bytes (5,1 MB, 4,9 MiB) copied, 14,6892 s, 349 kB/s
>> [root@localhost tmp]# echo bfq > /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler
>> [root@localhost tmp]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/test.img bs=512 count=10000 oflag=dsync
>> 10000+0 record dentro
>> 10000+0 record fuori
>> 5120000 bytes (5,1 MB, 4,9 MiB) copied, 20,1953 s, 254 kB/s
>>
>
> Yes, this is indeed the testcase, although I see a much bigger
> drop in performance with bfq, compared to the results from
> your setup.
>
> Regards,
> Srivatsa

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-21 08:24    [W:0.126 / U:4.964 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site