From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754602AbZHCJPe (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Aug 2009 05:15:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754492AbZHCJPd (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Aug 2009 05:15:33 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.156]:58006 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754459AbZHCJPc (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Aug 2009 05:15:32 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=VQMW0Q3ORTzZxdcgyLQEVgfFR9LhwAbrX94onNjZJDF1v5VszysbgJeANVUSaSUNZv BhC4cKd+qIQ6MlNyLsmP1EelsUi2iYdi4TEg6gtYFauBNPe/aanhUYTAZXocigyaG++n rjZGODhRGTHAZhXZW1iqZ+EliN+9GGcZAufFo= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4A7338AF.8010407@vlnb.net> References: <4A3CD62B.1020407@vlnb.net> <4A60C1A8.9020504@vlnb.net> <4A641AAC.9030300@vlnb.net> <4A6DA77B.7080600@vlnb.net> <4A6F4C81.10600@vlnb.net> <4A7338AF.8010407@vlnb.net> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 11:15:32 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RESEND] [PATCH] readahead:add blk_run_backing_dev From: Ronald Moesbergen To: Vladislav Bolkhovitin Cc: fengguang.wu@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Alan.Brunelle@hp.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, randy.dunlap@oracle.com, Bart Van Assche Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2009/7/31 Vladislav Bolkhovitin : > > OK, as I expected, on the SCST level everything is clear and the forced > ordering change didn't change anything. > > But still, a single read stream must be the fastest from single thread. > Otherwise, there's something wrong somewhere in the I/O path: block layer, > RA, I/O scheduler. And, apparently, this is what we have and should find out > the cause. > > Can you check if noop on the target and/or initiator makes any difference? > Case 5 with 1 and 2 threads will be sufficient. That doesn't seem to help: client kernel: 2.6.26-15lenny3 (debian) server kernel: 2.6.29.5 with readahead-context, blk_run_backing_dev and io_context, forced_order With one IO thread: 5) client: default, server: default (server noop, client noop) blocksize R R R R(avg, R(std R (bytes) (s) (s) (s) MB/s) ,MB/s) (IOPS) 67108864 17.612 21.113 21.355 51.532 4.680 0.805 33554432 18.329 18.523 19.049 54.969 0.891 1.718 16777216 18.497 18.219 17.042 57.217 2.059 3.576 With two threads: 5) client: default, server: default (server noop, client noop) blocksize R R R R(avg, R(std R (bytes) (s) (s) (s) MB/s) ,MB/s) (IOPS) 67108864 17.436 18.376 20.493 54.807 3.634 0.856 33554432 17.466 16.980 18.261 58.337 1.740 1.823 16777216 18.222 17.567 18.077 57.045 0.901 3.565 Ronald.