Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753818AbWKFVWR (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:22:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753823AbWKFVWR (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:22:17 -0500 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:49002 "EHLO mga03.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753818AbWKFVWQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:22:16 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,392,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="142079304:sNHT703055402" From: "Chen, Kenneth W" To: "'Jens Axboe'" , "Brent Baccala" Cc: Subject: RE: async I/O seems to be blocking on 2.6.15 Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:22:12 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c701e9$a1435260$ff0da8c0@amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AccA0+Q5yIwcnDocTMOzztS+KzaocABE/fOw In-Reply-To: <20061105121522.GC13555@kernel.dk> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2337 Lines: 60 Jens Axboe wrote on Sunday, November 05, 2006 4:15 AM > On Fri, Nov 03 2006, Brent Baccala wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > >Try to time it (visual output of the app is not very telling, and it's > > >buffered) and then apply some profiling. > > > > OK, a little more info. I added gettimeofday() calls after each call > > to io_submit(), put the timevals in an array, and after everything was > > done computed the difference between each timeval and the program start > > time, as well as the deltas. I got this: > > > > 0: 0.080s > > 1: 0.086s 0.006s > > 2: 0.102s 0.016s > > 3: 0.111s 0.008s > > 4: 0.118s 0.007s > > 5: 0.134s 0.015s > > 6: 0.141s 0.006s > > 7: 0.148s 0.006s > > 8: 0.158s 0.009s > > 9: 0.164s 0.006s > > ... > > 96: 1.036s 0.007s > > 97: 1.044s 0.007s > > 98: 1.147s 0.102s > > 99: 1.155s 0.008s > > > > 98 appears to be an aberration. Perhaps three of the times on an > > average run are around a tenth of a second; all of the others are > > pretty steady at 7 or 8 microseconds. So, it's basically linear in > > its time consumption. > > > > Does 7 microseconds seem a bit excessive for an io_submit (and a > > gettimeofday)? > > I guess you mean miliseconds, not microseconds. 7 miliseconds seems way > too long. I repeated your test here, and the 100 submits take 97000 > microseconds here - or 97 miliseconds. So that's a little less than 1 > msec per io_submit. Still pretty big. You can experiment with oprofile > to profile where the kernel spends its time in that period. I've tried that myself too and see similar result. One thing to note is that I/O being submitted are pretty big at 1MB, so the vector list inside bio is going to be pretty long and it will take a while to construct that. Drop the size for each I/O to something like 4KB will significantly reduce the time. I haven't done the measurement whether the time to submit I/O grows linearly with respect to I/O size. Most likely it will. If it is not, then we might have a scaling problem (though I don't believe we have this problem). - Ken - 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/