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

On 11/29/18 6:30 PM, Tom Talpey wrote:

On 11/29/2018 9:21 PM, John Hubbard wrote:

quoted

On 11/29/18 6:18 PM, Tom Talpey wrote:

quoted

On 11/29/2018 8:39 PM, John Hubbard wrote:

quoted

On 11/28/18 5:59 AM, Tom Talpey wrote:

quoted

On 11/27/2018 9:52 PM, John Hubbard wrote:

quoted

On 11/27/18 5:21 PM, Tom Talpey wrote:

quoted

On 11/21/2018 5:06 PM, John Hubbard wrote:

quoted

On 11/21/18 8:49 AM, Tom Talpey wrote:

quoted

On 11/21/2018 1:09 AM, John Hubbard wrote:

quoted

On 11/19/18 10:57 AM, Tom Talpey wrote:

[...]

Excerpting from below:

quoted

Baseline 4.20.0-rc3 (commit f2ce1065e767), as before:
      read: IOPS=193k, BW=753MiB/s (790MB/s)(1024MiB/1360msec)
     cpu          : usr=16.26%, sys=48.05%, ctx=251258, majf=0, minf=73

vs

quoted

With patches applied:
      read: IOPS=193k, BW=753MiB/s (790MB/s)(1024MiB/1360msec)
     cpu          : usr=16.26%, sys=48.05%, ctx=251258, majf=0, minf=73

Perfect results, not CPU limited, and full IOPS.

Curiously identical, so I trust you've checked that you measured
both targets, but if so, I say it's good.

Argh, copy-paste error in the email. The real "before" is ever so slightly
better, at 194K IOPS and 759 MB/s:

Definitely better - note the system CPU is lower, which is probably the
reason for the increased IOPS.

quoted

   cpu          : usr=18.24%, sys=44.77%, ctx=251527, majf=0, minf=73

Good result - a correct implementation, and faster.

Thanks, Tom, I really appreciate your experience and help on what performance 
should look like here. (I'm sure you can guess that this is the first time 
I've worked with fio, heh.)

I'll send out a new, non-RFC patchset soon, then.

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA