Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:32:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:32:46 -0400 Received: from vasquez.zip.com.au ([203.12.97.41]:52754 "EHLO vasquez.zip.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:32:27 -0400 Message-ID: <3BD73280.7FC6526D@zip.com.au> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 14:28:32 -0700 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.12-ac6 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marinos J. Yannikos" CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: gdth / SCSI read performance issues (2.2.19 and 2.4.10) In-Reply-To: <3BD6B278.3070300@geizhals.at> <3BD6ECE6.8C9435C4@zip.com.au> <3BD729B6.6030902@geizhals.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Marinos J. Yannikos" wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Well that's pretty bad, isn't it? > > We could have bought a much cheaper controller and slower disks ;-) It's Linux's way of saving you money :) > > - Disable CONFIG_HIGHMEM > > That seems to have no effect on performance. Btw., the 64GB support in > 2.4.10 seemed to be buggy ("0-order allocation failed", then the DB > crashed), so we were using the 4GB setting. There have been many reports of this happening, but they are tapering off now. > > - Try linux-2.4.13 > > This helped - now performance is up to par with 2.2.19 (~ 85MB/s) - thanks! It's surprising that 2.4.10->2.4.13 actually doubled throughput. > > - Profile the kernel. [...] With something like: > > ~/kern-prof.sh cp some_huge_file /dev/null > > I tried this, but with > dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=1024k count=3000 > > (the fs is too slow - so "cp" peaks out at 17MB/s!) Really? Are you saying that on a controller which can do 85 megs/second, you can't read files through the filesystem at greater than 17? Which filesystem? > The result (last 4 lines): > c01388fc try_to_free_buffers 55 0.1511 > c0128b10 file_read_actor 1179 14.0357 > c01053b0 default_idle 6784 130.4615 > 00000000 total 8695 0.0065 OK, that's normal and proper. Almost all the kernel time is spent copying data. > Does this suggest that the kernel isn't the bottleneck? Well... We seem to have three issues here: 1: Why isn't the controller achieving the manufacturer's claimed throughput? Don't know. Maybe it's the software copy. Maybe it's the device driver. Maybe they lied :). It'd be interesting to test it on the same machine with the vendor's drivers and win2k. 2: 0-order allocation failures. 3: Poor `cp' throughput. This one is strange. Perhaps `cp' is using a small transfer-size and the kernel's readhead isn't working properly. Could you experiment with this some more? For example, what happens with dd if=large_file of=/dev/null bs=4096k - - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/