> Il giorno 16 ott 2018, alle ore 18:14, Federico Motta <[email protected]> ha
> scritto:
>
> On 10/15/18 5:02 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On Mon, 2018-10-15 at 16:10 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> + * For blk-mq devices, we default to using:
>>> + * - "none" for multiqueue devices (nr_hw_queues != 1)
>>> + * - "bfq", if available, for single queue devices
>>> + * - "mq-deadline" if "bfq" is not available for single queue devices
>>> + * - "none" for single queue devices as well as last resort
>>
>> For SATA SSDs nr_hw_queues == 1 so this patch will also affect these SSDs.
>> Since this patch is an attempt to improve performance, I'd like to see
>> measurement data for one or more recent SATA SSDs before a decision is
>> taken about what to do with this patch.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bart.
>>
>
> Hi,
> although these tests should be run for single-queue devices, I tried to
> run them on an NVMe high-performance device. Imho if results are good
> in such a "difficult to deal with" multi-queue device, they should be
> good enough also in a "simpler" single-queue storage device..
>
> Testbed specs:
> kernel = 4.18.0 (from bfq dev branch [1], where bfq already contains
> also the commits that will be available from 4.20)
> fs = ext4
> drive = ssd samsung 960 pro NVMe m.2 512gb
>
> Device data sheet specs state that under random IO:
> * QD 1 thread 1
> * read = 14 kIOPS
> * write = 50 kIOPS
> * QD 32 thread 4
> * read = write = 330 kIOPS
>
> What follows is a results summary; under requests I can give all
> results. The workload notation (e.g. 5r5w-seq) means:
> - num_readers (5r)
> - num_writers (5w)
> - sequential_io or random_io (-seq)
>
>
> # replayed gnome-terminal startup time (lower is better)
> workload bfq-mq [s] none [s] % gain
> -------- ---------- -------- ------
> 10r-seq 0.3725 2.79 86.65
> 5r5w-seq 0.9725 5.53 82.41
>
> # throughput (higher is better)
> workload bfq-mq [mb/s] none [mb/s] % gain
> --------- ------------- ----------- -------
> 10r-rand 394.806 429.735 -8.128
> 10r-seq 1387.63 1431.81 -3.086
> 1r-seq 838.13 798.872 4.914
> 5r5w-rand 1118.12 1297.46 -13.822
> 5r5w-seq 1187 1313.8 -9.651
>
A little unexpectedly for me, throughput loss for random I/O is even
lower than what I have obtained with my nasty SATA SSD (and reported
in my public results).
I didn't expect that little loss with sequential parallel reads.
Probably, when going multiqueue, there are changes I haven't even
thought about (I have never even tested bfq on a multi-queue device).
Thanks,
Paolo
> Thanks,
> Federico
>
> [1] https://github.com/Algodev-github/bfq-mq/commits/bfq-mq
