Re: [Xen-devel] Backport request to stable of two performance related fixes for xen-blkfront (3.13 fixes to earlier trees)

[Vitaly Kuznetsov]

Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Jiri Slaby <jslaby@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On 06/04/2014 07:48 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 03:11:22PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>>> Hey Greg
>>>>
>>>> This email is in regards to backporting two patches to stable that
>>>> fall under the 'performance' rule:
>>>>
>>>>  bfe11d6de1c416cea4f3f0f35f864162063ce3fa
>>>>  fbe363c476afe8ec992d3baf682670a4bd1b6ce6
>>> 
>>> Now queued up, thanks.
>>
>> AFAIU, they introduce a performance regression.
>>
>> Vitaly?
>
> I'm aware of a performance regression in a 'very special' case when
> ramdisks or files on tmpfs are being used as storage, I post my results
> a while ago:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/22/164
> I'm not sure if that 'special' case requires investigation and/or should
> prevent us from doing stable backport but it would be nice if someone
> tries to reproduce it at least.
>
> I'm going to make a bunch of tests with FusionIO drives and sequential
> read to replicate same test Felipe did, I'll report as soon as I have
> data (beginning of next week hopefuly).

Turns out the regression I'm observing with these patches is not
restricted to tmpfs/ramdisk usage.

I was doing tests with Fusion-io ioDrive Duo 320GB (Dual Adapter) on HP
ProLiant DL380 G6 (2xE5540, 8G RAM). Hyperthreading is disabled, Dom0 is
pinned to CPU0 (cores 0,1,2,3) I run up to 8 guests with 1 vCPU each,
they are pinned to CPU1 (cores 4,5,6,7,4,5,6,7). I tried differed
pinning (Dom0 to 0,1,4,5, DomUs to 2,3,6,7,2,3,6,7 to balance NUMA, that
doesn't make any difference to the results). I was testing on top of
Xen-4.3.2.

I was testing two storage configurations:
1) Plain 10G partitions from one Fusion drive (/dev/fioa) are attached
to guests
2) LVM group is created on top of both drives (/dev/fioa, /dev/fiob),
10G logical volumes are created with striping (lvcreate -i2 ...)

Test is done by simultaneous fio run in guests (rw=read, direct=1) for
10 second. Each test was performed 3 times and the average was taken. 
Kernels I compare are:
1) v3.15-rc5-157-g60b5f90 unmodified
2) v3.15-rc5-157-g60b5f90 with 427bfe07e6744c058ce6fc4aa187cda96b635539,
   bfe11d6de1c416cea4f3f0f35f864162063ce3fa, and
   fbe363c476afe8ec992d3baf682670a4bd1b6ce6 reverted.

First test was done with Dom0 with persistent grant support (Fedora's
3.14.4-200.fc20.x86_64):
1) Partitions:
http://hadoop.ru/pubfiles/bug1096909/fusion/315_pgrants_partitions.png
(same markers mean same bs, we get 860 MB/s here, patches make no
difference, result matches expectation)

2) LVM Stripe:
http://hadoop.ru/pubfiles/bug1096909/fusion/315_pgrants_stripe.png
(1715 MB/s, patches make no difference, result matches expectation)

Second test was performed with Dom0 without persistent grants support
(Fedora's 3.7.9-205.fc18.x86_64)
1) Partitions:
http://hadoop.ru/pubfiles/bug1096909/fusion/315_nopgrants_partitions.png
(860 MB/sec again, patches worsen a bit overall throughput with 1-3
clients)

2) LVM Stripe:
http://hadoop.ru/pubfiles/bug1096909/fusion/315_nopgrants_stripe.png
(Here we see the same regression I observed with ramdisks and tmpfs
files, unmodified kernel: 1550MB/s, with patches reverted: 1715MB/s).

The only major difference with Felipe's test is that he was using
blktap3 with XenServer and I'm using standard blktap2.

-- 
  Vitaly
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/