Thread (26 messages) 26 messages, 8 authors, 2018-11-30

Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] RFC: gup+dma: tracking dma-pinned pages

From: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Date: 2018-11-19 18:57:51
Also in: linux-fsdevel, linux-rdma, lkml

John, thanks for the discussion at LPC. One of the concerns we
raised however was the performance test. The numbers below are
rather obviously tainted. I think we need to get a better baseline
before concluding anything...

Here's my main concern:

On 11/10/2018 3:50 AM, john.hubbard@gmail.com wrote:
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
...
------------------------------------------------------
WITHOUT the patch:
------------------------------------------------------
reader: (g=0): rw=read, bs=(R) 4096B-4096B, (W) 4096B-4096B, (T) 4096B-4096B, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64
fio-3.3
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [R(1)][100.0%][r=55.5MiB/s,w=0KiB/s][r=14.2k,w=0 IOPS][eta 00m:00s]
reader: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1750: Tue Nov  6 20:18:06 2018
    read: IOPS=13.9k, BW=54.4MiB/s (57.0MB/s)(1024MiB/18826msec)
~14000 4KB read IOPS is really, really low for an NVMe disk.
   cpu          : usr=2.39%, sys=95.30%, ctx=669, majf=0, minf=72
CPU is obviously the limiting factor. At these IOPS, it should be far
less.
------------------------------------------------------
OR, here's a better run WITH the patch applied, and you can see that this is nearly as good
as the "without" case:
------------------------------------------------------

reader: (g=0): rw=read, bs=(R) 4096B-4096B, (W) 4096B-4096B, (T) 4096B-4096B, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64
fio-3.3
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [R(1)][100.0%][r=53.2MiB/s,w=0KiB/s][r=13.6k,w=0 IOPS][eta 00m:00s]
reader: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2521: Tue Nov  6 20:01:33 2018
    read: IOPS=13.4k, BW=52.5MiB/s (55.1MB/s)(1024MiB/19499msec)
Similar low IOPS.
   cpu          : usr=3.47%, sys=94.61%, ctx=370, majf=0, minf=73
Similar CPU saturation.
I get nearly 400,000 4KB IOPS on my tiny desktop, which has a 25W
i7-7500 and a Samsung PM961 128GB NVMe (stock Bionic 4.15 kernel
and fio version 3.1). Even then, the CPU saturates, so it's not
necessarily a perfect test. I'd like to see your runs both get to
"max" IOPS, i.e. CPU < 100%, and compare the CPU numbers. This would
give the best comparison for making a decision.

Can you confirm what type of hardware you're running this test on?
CPU, memory speed and capacity, and NVMe device especially?

Tom.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help