From: Saeed Mirzamohammadi <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Phoronix pts fio io_uring test regression report on upstream v6.1 and v5.15
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 18:58:45 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Hi Jens,
> On Jan 26, 2023, at 10:35 AM, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 1/26/23 11:04 AM, Saeed Mirzamohammadi wrote:
>> Hi Jens,
>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2023, at 4:28 PM, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/25/23 5:22?PM, Saeed Mirzamohammadi wrote:
>>>> Hi Jens,
>>>>
>>>> I applied your patch (with a minor conflict in xfs_file_open() since FMODE_BUF_WASYNC isn't in v5.15) and did the same series of tests on the v5.15 kernel. All the io_uring benchmarks regressed 20-45% after it. I haven't tested on v6.1 yet.
>>>
>>> It should basically make the behavior the same as before once you apply
>>> the patch, so please pass on the patch that you applied for 5.15 so we
>>> can take a closer look.
>>
>> Attached the patch.
>
> I tested the upstream variant, and it does what it's supposed to and
> gets parallel writes on O_DIRECT. Unpatched, any dio write results in:
>
> fio-566 [000] ..... 131.071108: io_uring_queue_async_work: ring 00000000706cb6c0, request 00000000b21691c4, user_data 0xaaab0e8e4c00, opcode WRITE, flags 0xe0040000, hashed queue, work 000000002c5aeb79
>
> and after the patch:
>
> fio-376 [000] ..... 24.590994: io_uring_queue_async_work: ring 000000007bdb650a, request 000000006b5350e0, user_data 0xaaab1b3e3c00, opcode WRITE, flags 0xe0040000, normal queue, work 00000000e3e81955
>
Thanks for looking into this.
> where the hashed queued is serialized based on the inode, and the normal
> queue is not (eg they run in parallel).
>
> As mentioned, the fio job being used isn't representative of anything
> that should actually be run, the async flag really only exists for
> experimentation. Do you have a real workload that is seeing a regression?
> If yes, does that real workload change performance with the patch?
I tested without the async flag but didn’t see any change in the performance.
I haven’t tested any real workload yet. I’ll share with you if I noticed anything.
Thanks,
Saeed
p.s. I experienced multipathd issues with the patch that I had to work through. Never without the patch.
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-14 18:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-19 21:36 Phoronix pts fio io_uring test regression report on upstream v6.1 and v5.15 Saeed Mirzamohammadi
2023-01-20 4:12 ` Jens Axboe
2023-01-26 0:22 ` Saeed Mirzamohammadi
2023-01-26 0:28 ` Jens Axboe
[not found] ` <[email protected]>
2023-01-26 18:35 ` Jens Axboe
2023-02-14 18:58 ` Saeed Mirzamohammadi [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox