On Sunday 20 February 2011 06:56:39 Andrei Warkentin wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The numbers you see here are taken over multiple runs. Do you see a lot
> > of fluctuation when doing this with --count=1?
> >
>
> Yep. Quite a bit.
>
> # ./flashbench -c 1 -A -b 1024 /dev/block/mmcblk0p9
> write align 8388608 pre 4.52ms on 7.58ms post 3.93ms diff
> 3.36ms
> write align 4194304 pre 5.97ms on 8.69ms post 4.36ms diff
> 3.53ms
> write align 2097152 pre 3.57ms on 7.96ms post 4.6ms diff
> 3.88ms
> write align 1048576 pre 5.33ms on 27.4ms post 4.88ms diff
> 22.3ms
> write align 524288 pre 49.3ms on 31.4ms post 14.9ms diff
> -679265
> write align 262144 pre 39.7ms on 38.3ms post 5.27ms diff
> 15.8ms
> write align 131072 pre 33.8ms on 45.4ms post 5.26ms diff
> 25.9ms
> write align 65536 pre 34.4ms on 40.9ms post 3.3ms diff
> 22.1ms
> write align 32768 pre 30.2ms on 44.8ms post 5.13ms diff
> 27.1ms
> write align 16384 pre 44.5ms on 5.05ms post 33.3ms diff
> -338542
> write align 8192 pre 25.5ms on 70.6ms post 25.3ms diff
> 45.2ms
> write align 4096 pre 4.89ms on 4.47ms post 5.29ms diff
> -623390
> write align 2048 pre 4.88ms on 4.89ms post 5.2ms diff
> -155781
> # ./flashbench -c 1 -A -b 1024 /dev/block/mmcblk0p9
> write align 8388608 pre 4.68ms on 9.06ms post 5.14ms diff
> 4.15ms
> write align 4194304 pre 4.37ms on 7.49ms post 4.59ms diff
> 3.01ms
> write align 2097152 pre 23.7ms on 1.9ms post 14.8ms diff
> -173218
> write align 1048576 pre 14.8ms on 19.9ms post 4.75ms diff
> 10.2ms
> write align 524288 pre 20.2ms on 24.9ms post 10.7ms diff
> 9.46ms
> write align 262144 pre 20.2ms on 3.01ms post 20.1ms diff
> -171062
> write align 131072 pre 25.9ms on 24.9ms post 9.85ms diff
> 7.06ms
> write align 65536 pre 15.5ms on 30.3ms post 2.95ms diff
> 21.1ms
> write align 32768 pre 27.3ms on 19.1ms post 5.86ms diff
> 2.5ms
> write align 16384 pre 25.4ms on 55.9ms post 12.7ms diff
> 36.9ms
> write align 8192 pre 4.8ms on 102ms post 9.47ms diff
> 94.8ms
> write align 4096 pre 4.92ms on 5.16ms post 4.98ms diff
> 207µs
> write align 2048 pre 4.64ms on 4.92ms post 5.45ms diff
> -121860
> # ./flashbench -c 1 -A -b 1024 /dev/block/mmcblk0p9
> write align 8388608 pre 15.8ms on 9.39ms post 4.68ms diff
> -854295
> write align 4194304 pre 4.76ms on 7.54ms post 3.82ms diff
> 3.24ms
> write align 2097152 pre 19.9ms on 9.73ms post 4.44ms diff
> -244517
> write align 1048576 pre 14.5ms on 19.1ms post 5.21ms diff
> 9.23ms
> write align 524288 pre 24.9ms on 29ms post 5.89ms diff 13.6ms
> write align 262144 pre 24.9ms on 2.41ms post 20.8ms diff
> -204328
> write align 131072 pre 25.6ms on 30ms post 4.84ms diff 14.8ms
> write align 65536 pre 26.4ms on 24.4ms post 6.16ms diff
> 8.12ms
> write align 32768 pre 15ms on 30.6ms post 15.4ms diff
> 15.4ms
> write align 16384 pre 16.1ms on 45.4ms post 16.5ms diff
> 29.1ms
> write align 8192 pre 5.88ms on 107ms post 5.45ms diff
> 101ms
> write align 4096 pre 5.17ms on 5.78ms post 4.83ms diff
> 778µs
> write align 2048 pre 3.99ms on 5.27ms post 3.97ms diff
> 1.29ms
> # ./flashbench -c 1 -A -b 1024 /dev/block/mmcblk0p9
> write align 8388608 pre 16.1ms on 8.37ms post 5.44ms diff
> -241222
> write align 4194304 pre 4.07ms on 7.27ms post 3.89ms diff
> 3.29ms
> write align 2097152 pre 24.2ms on 18.5ms post 5.63ms diff
> 3.59ms
> write align 1048576 pre 4.08ms on 18.9ms post 5.46ms diff
> 14.1ms
> write align 524288 pre 25.1ms on 28ms post 14.6ms diff 8.13ms
> write align 262144 pre 15.8ms on 30ms post 5.4ms diff 19.4ms
> write align 131072 pre 24.7ms on 30.8ms post 4.43ms diff
> 16.2ms
> write align 65536 pre 5ms on 40.5ms post 5.95ms diff 35.1ms
> write align 32768 pre 24.7ms on 30.6ms post 4.92ms diff
> 15.8ms
> write align 16384 pre 25.2ms on 132ms post 10.2ms diff
> 114ms
> write align 8192 pre 7.64ms on 111ms post 9.18ms diff
> 102ms
> write align 4096 pre 5.11ms on 3.92ms post 5.4ms diff
> -134159
> write align 2048 pre 3.92ms on 4.41ms post 4.51ms diff
> 196µs
Every value is the average of eight measurements, so there are probably
some that include the 100ms garbage collection, and others that don't.
I'm more confused about this now than I was before.
> > Also, does the same happen with other blocksizes, e.g. 4096 or 8192, passed
> > to flashbench?
>
> # echo 0 > /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/page_size
> # ./flashbench -A -b 1024 /dev/block/mmcblk0p9
> write align 65536 pre 3.33ms on 6.57ms post 3.65ms diff
> 3.08ms
> write align 32768 pre 3.68ms on 6.6ms post 3.7ms diff
> 2.91ms
> write align 16384 pre 3.64ms on 97.6ms post 3.26ms diff
> 94.2ms
> write align 8192 pre 3.49ms on 115ms post 3.62ms diff
> 112ms
> write align 4096 pre 3.91ms on 3.91ms post 3.9ms diff
> 360ns
> write align 2048 pre 3.92ms on 3.92ms post 3.92ms diff
> -1374ns
> # ./flashbench -A -b 2048 /dev/block/mmcblk0p9
> write align 65536 pre 4.02ms on 7.22ms post 4.14ms diff
> 3.14ms
> write align 32768 pre 4ms on 7.07ms post 3.95ms diff 3.1ms
> write align 16384 pre 3.66ms on 106ms post 3.4ms diff
> 102ms
> write align 8192 pre 3.56ms on 106ms post 3.36ms diff
> 103ms
> write align 4096 pre 3.61ms on 4.1ms post 4.35ms diff
> 117µs
> # ./flashbench -A -b 4096 /dev/block/mmcblk0p9
> write align 65536 pre 3.89ms on 6.97ms post 3.96ms diff
> 3.04ms
> write align 32768 pre 3.89ms on 6.97ms post 3.96ms diff
> 3.04ms
> write align 16384 pre 3.74ms on 114ms post 4.05ms diff
> 110ms
> write align 8192 pre 4.25ms on 115ms post 4.8ms diff
> 110ms
> # ./flashbench -A -b 8192 /dev/block/mmcblk0p9
> write align 65536 pre 4.11ms on 7.46ms post 4.24ms diff
> 3.29ms
> write align 32768 pre 4.15ms on 7.45ms post 4.25ms diff
> 3.25ms
> write align 16384 pre 4.24ms on 96.1ms post 3.83ms diff
> 92.1ms
Ok, that is very consistent then at least.
> The following I thought this was interesting. I did it to see the big
> time go away, since it would end up being a 16K write straddling an 8K
> boundary, but the pre and post results I don't understand at all.
>
> # ./flashbench -A -b 16384 /dev/block/mmcblk0p9
> write align 8388608 pre 121ms on 7.76ms post 116ms diff
> -110845
> write align 4194304 pre 129ms on 7.57ms post 115ms diff
> -114863
> write align 2097152 pre 121ms on 7.78ms post 123ms diff
> -114318
> write align 1048576 pre 131ms on 7.74ms post 106ms diff
> -110856
> write align 524288 pre 131ms on 7.58ms post 116ms diff
> -115926
> write align 262144 pre 131ms on 7.55ms post 115ms diff
> -115591
> write align 131072 pre 131ms on 7.54ms post 116ms diff
> -115617
> write align 65536 pre 131ms on 7.54ms post 115ms diff
> -115579
> write align 32768 pre 125ms on 6.89ms post 116ms diff
> -113408
The description of the test case is probably suboptimal. What this does
is 32 KB accesses, with 32 KB alignment in the pre and post case, but 16 KB
alignment in the "on" case. The idea here is that it should never do
any access with less than "--blocksize" aligment.
This is what I think happens:
Since the partition is over 64 MB size and it can have 7 4 MB allocation units
open,
writing to 8 locations on the drive separated 8 MB causes it to do garbage
collection
all the time for 32KB accesses and larger. However, the "on" measurement is only
16 KB aligned, so it goes into T's buffer A for small writes, and does not hit
the garbage collection all the time, so it ends up being a lot faster.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
