Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] RFC: gup+dma: tracking dma-pinned pages
To:     Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>, <john.hubbard@gmail.com>,
        <linux-mm@kvack.org>
CC:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20181110085041.10071-1-jhubbard@nvidia.com>
 <942cb823-9b18-69e7-84aa-557a68f9d7e9@talpey.com>
 <97934904-2754-77e0-5fcb-83f2311362ee@nvidia.com>
 <5159e02f-17f8-df8b-600c-1b09356e46a9@talpey.com>
 <c1ba07d6-ebfa-ddb9-c25e-e5c1bfbecf74@nvidia.com>
 <15e4a0c0-cadd-e549-962f-8d9aa9fc033a@talpey.com>
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Message-ID: <313bf82d-cdeb-8c75-3772-7a124ecdfbd5@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Nov 2018 18:52:28 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <15e4a0c0-cadd-e549-962f-8d9aa9fc033a@talpey.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US-large
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 11/27/18 5:21 PM, Tom Talpey wrote:
> On 11/21/2018 5:06 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 11/21/18 8:49 AM, Tom Talpey wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2018 1:09 AM, John Hubbard wrote:
>>>> On 11/19/18 10:57 AM, Tom Talpey wrote:
[...]
>>>
>>> What I'd really like to see is to go back to the original fio parameter=
s
>>> (1 thread, 64 iodepth) and try to get a result that gets at least close
>>> to the speced 200K IOPS of the NVMe device. There seems to be something
>>> wrong with yours, currently.
>>
>> I'll dig into what has gone wrong with the test. I see fio putting data =
files
>> in the right place, so the obvious "using the wrong drive" is (probably)
>> not it. Even though it really feels like that sort of thing. We'll see.
>>
>>>
>>> Then of course, the result with the patched get_user_pages, and
>>> compare whichever of IOPS or CPU% changes, and how much.
>>>
>>> If these are within a few percent, I agree it's good to go. If it's
>>> roughly 25% like the result just above, that's a rocky road.
>>>
>>> I can try this after the holiday on some basic hardware and might
>>> be able to scrounge up better. Can you post that github link?
>>>
>>
>> Here:
>>
>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 git@github.com:johnhubbard/linux (branch: gup_dma_tes=
ting)
>=20
> I'm super-limited here this week hardware-wise and have not been able
> to try testing with the patched kernel.
>=20
> I was able to compare my earlier quick test with a Bionic 4.15 kernel
> (400K IOPS) against a similar 4.20rc3 kernel, and the rate dropped to
> ~_375K_ IOPS. Which I found perhaps troubling. But it was only a quick
> test, and without your change.
>=20

So just to double check (again): you are running fio with these parameters,
right?

[reader]
direct=3D1
ioengine=3Dlibaio
blocksize=3D4096
size=3D1g
numjobs=3D1
rw=3Dread
iodepth=3D64


> Say, that branch reports it has not had a commit since June 30. Is that
> the right one? What about gup_dma_for_lpc_2018?
>=20

That's the right branch, but the AuthorDate for the head commit (only) some=
how
got stuck in the past. I just now amended that patch with a new date and pu=
shed=20
it, so the head commit now shows Nov 27:

   https://github.com/johnhubbard/linux/commits/gup_dma_testing


The actual code is the same, though. (It is still based on Nov 19th's f2ce1=
065e767
commit.)


thanks,
--=20
John Hubbard
NVIDIA