Hi,
Copying more than one file from my PC (kernel 2.6.32) to my Nokia N900
over USB mass storage mode is very slow when CFQ is the i/o scheduler.
The target uses vfat filesystem.
I am using iotop to monitor the I/O in general, plus I performed the
following test. file1 and file2 are each 700M and both housed on a
ramdrive for this test. They were deleted from the destination between
runs.
# one file at a time with sync in-between, fast speeds:
$ sync; time sh -c "cp file1 /mnt/usb; sync; cp file2 /mnt/usb; sync"
real 1m25.697s
user 0m0.005s
sys 0m2.509s
# copy two files in a row, then sync, speed is bad:
$ sync; time sh -c "cp file1 file2 /mnt/usb; sync"
real 6m51.439s
user 0m0.007s
sys 0m2.615s
Using all I/O schedulers, the speed of the first test was the same. So
it's only related to writing more than 1 file to the N900. The timing
results for the second test ended up as such:
cfq: 6m51.439s
noop: 3m0.733s
anticipatory: 1m44.348s
deadline: 1m36.804s
Also, in 2.6.31 the speed was four times slower, so the removal of old
pdflush code may have made a difference in this case. Copying 1
gigabyte takes about 1 minute at optimal speed, about 5 minutes using
CFQ in kernel 2.6.32, and took about 20 minutes using CFQ in kernel
2.6.31.
I thought you may be interested in case there's room to improve the
scheduler. If you want any other info let me know!
Thanks
Paul
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 10:07:22AM -0600, Paul Hartman wrote:
> Hi,
I'm going to CC Jens on this email as he's the block device maintainer
and might be in the better position to comment on this.
> Copying more than one file from my PC (kernel 2.6.32) to my Nokia N900
> over USB mass storage mode is very slow when CFQ is the i/o scheduler.
> The target uses vfat filesystem.
>
> I am using iotop to monitor the I/O in general, plus I performed the
> following test. file1 and file2 are each 700M and both housed on a
> ramdrive for this test. They were deleted from the destination between
> runs.
>
> # one file at a time with sync in-between, fast speeds:
> $ sync; time sh -c "cp file1 /mnt/usb; sync; cp file2 /mnt/usb; sync"
>
> real 1m25.697s
> user 0m0.005s
> sys 0m2.509s
>
> # copy two files in a row, then sync, speed is bad:
> $ sync; time sh -c "cp file1 file2 /mnt/usb; sync"
>
> real 6m51.439s
> user 0m0.007s
> sys 0m2.615s
>
>
> Using all I/O schedulers, the speed of the first test was the same. So
> it's only related to writing more than 1 file to the N900. The timing
> results for the second test ended up as such:
>
> cfq: 6m51.439s
> noop: 3m0.733s
> anticipatory: 1m44.348s
> deadline: 1m36.804s
>
>
> Also, in 2.6.31 the speed was four times slower, so the removal of old
> pdflush code may have made a difference in this case. Copying 1
> gigabyte takes about 1 minute at optimal speed, about 5 minutes using
> CFQ in kernel 2.6.32, and took about 20 minutes using CFQ in kernel
> 2.6.31.
>
> I thought you may be interested in case there's room to improve the
> scheduler. If you want any other info let me know!
>
> Thanks
> Paul
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Paul Hartman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Copying more than one file from my PC (kernel 2.6.32) to my Nokia N900
> over USB mass storage mode is very slow when CFQ is the i/o scheduler.
> The target uses vfat filesystem.
>
> I am using iotop to monitor the I/O in general, plus I performed the
> following test. file1 and file2 are each 700M and both housed on a
> ramdrive for this test. They were deleted from the destination between
> runs.
>
> # one file at a time with sync in-between, fast speeds:
> $ sync; time sh -c "cp file1 /mnt/usb; sync; cp file2 /mnt/usb; sync"
>
> real 1m25.697s
> user 0m0.005s
> sys 0m2.509s
>
> # copy two files in a row, then sync, speed is bad:
> $ sync; time sh -c "cp file1 file2 /mnt/usb; sync"
>
> real 6m51.439s
> user 0m0.007s
> sys 0m2.615s
>
>
> Using all I/O schedulers, the speed of the first test was the same. So
> it's only related to writing more than 1 file to the N900. The timing
> results for the second test ended up as such:
>
> cfq: 6m51.439s
> noop: 3m0.733s
> anticipatory: 1m44.348s
> deadline: 1m36.804s
>
>
> Also, in 2.6.31 the speed was four times slower, so the removal of old
> pdflush code may have made a difference in this case. Copying 1
> gigabyte takes about 1 minute at optimal speed, about 5 minutes using
> CFQ in kernel 2.6.32, and took about 20 minutes using CFQ in kernel
> 2.6.31.
>
> I thought you may be interested in case there's room to improve the
> scheduler. If you want any other info let me know!
Can you try setting:
/sys/block/**your_device** /queue/iosched/fifo_expire_sync
to a large number, e.g. 5000 ?
CFQ operates pretty much like deadline w.r.t. normal writes, but uses
a much shorter interval to switch between two streams of writes, to
reduce latency of data hitting disk, and this could cause low
performance on flash devices, where writes that do not cover whole
blocks are painfully slow.
Corrado
>
> Thanks
> Paul
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
__________________________________________________________________________
dott. Corrado Zoccolo mailto:[email protected]
PhD - Department of Computer Science - University of Pisa, Italy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The self-confidence of a warrior is not the self-confidence of the average
man. The average man seeks certainty in the eyes of the onlooker and calls
that self-confidence. The warrior seeks impeccability in his own eyes and
calls that humbleness.
Tales of Power - C. Castaneda
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Corrado Zoccolo <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Paul Hartman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Copying more than one file from my PC (kernel 2.6.32) to my Nokia N900
>> over USB mass storage mode is very slow when CFQ is the i/o scheduler.
>> The target uses vfat filesystem.
>>
>> I am using iotop to monitor the I/O in general, plus I performed the
>> following test. file1 and file2 are each 700M and both housed on a
>> ramdrive for this test. They were deleted from the destination between
>> runs.
>>
>> # one file at a time with sync in-between, fast speeds:
>> $ sync; time sh -c "cp file1 /mnt/usb; sync; cp file2 /mnt/usb; sync"
>>
>> real 1m25.697s
>> user 0m0.005s
>> sys 0m2.509s
>>
>> # copy two files in a row, then sync, speed is bad:
>> $ sync; time sh -c "cp file1 file2 /mnt/usb; sync"
>>
>> real 6m51.439s
>> user 0m0.007s
>> sys 0m2.615s
>>
>>
>> Using all I/O schedulers, the speed of the first test was the same. So
>> it's only related to writing more than 1 file to the N900. The timing
>> results for the second test ended up as such:
>>
>> cfq: 6m51.439s
>> noop: 3m0.733s
>> anticipatory: 1m44.348s
>> deadline: 1m36.804s
>>
>>
>> Also, in 2.6.31 the speed was four times slower, so the removal of old
>> pdflush code may have made a difference in this case. Copying 1
>> gigabyte takes about 1 minute at optimal speed, about 5 minutes using
>> CFQ in kernel 2.6.32, and took about 20 minutes using CFQ in kernel
>> 2.6.31.
>>
>> I thought you may be interested in case there's room to improve the
>> scheduler. If you want any other info let me know!
>
> Can you try setting:
> /sys/block/**your_device** /queue/iosched/fifo_expire_sync
> to a large number, e.g. 5000 ?
> CFQ operates pretty much like deadline w.r.t. normal writes, but uses
> a much shorter interval to switch between two streams of writes, to
> reduce latency of data hitting disk, and this could cause low
> performance on flash devices, where writes that do not cover whole
> blocks are painfully slow.
>
> Corrado
Hi Corrado,
>From previous test this value was 125. Now I'll try 5000 as you suggest:
real 6m25.435s
user 0m0.006s
sys 0m2.536s
So it's about the same result 5000 as with 125.
Thanks
Paul