Re: 2 times faster rawio and several fixes (2.4.3aa3)

From: Andrea Arcangeli (andrea@suse.de)
Date: Fri Apr 06 2001 - 13:07:01 EDT

  • Next message: Wayne Whitney: "Re: memory allocation problems"

    On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 06:34:40PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > 2.4.3aa3 with rawio-1:
    >
    > root@alpha:/home/andrea > time ./rawio-bench
    > Opening /dev/raw1
    > Allocating 50MB of memory
    > Reading from /dev/raw1
    > Writing data to /dev/raw1
    >
    > real 0m5.208s
    > user 0m0.001s
    > sys 0m1.162s
    > root@alpha:/home/andrea > time ./rawio-bench
    > Opening /dev/raw1
    > Allocating 50MB of memory
    > Reading from /dev/raw1
    > Writing data to /dev/raw1
    >
    > real 0m5.233s
    > user 0m0.002s
    > sys 0m1.184s
    > root@alpha:/home/andrea > time ./rawio-bench
    > Opening /dev/raw1
    > Allocating 50MB of memory
    > Reading from /dev/raw1
    > Writing data to /dev/raw1
    >
    > real 0m5.378s
    > user 0m0.002s
    > sys 0m1.213s
    > root@alpha:/home/andrea > time ./rawio-bench
    > Opening /dev/raw1
    > Allocating 50MB of memory
    > Reading from /dev/raw1
    > Writing data to /dev/raw1
    >
    > real 0m5.258s
    > user 0m0.001s
    > sys 0m1.183s
    > root@alpha:/home/andrea >

    with this patch:

    --- 2.4.3aa/include/linux/iobuf.h Fri Apr 6 16:33:12 2001
    +++ /misc/andrea-alpha/2.4.3aa/include/linux/iobuf.h Fri Apr 6 18:31:23 2001
    @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
      * entire iovec.
      */
     
    -#define KIO_MAX_ATOMIC_IO 512 /* in kb */
    +#define KIO_MAX_ATOMIC_IO 1024 /* in kb */
     #define KIO_STATIC_PAGES (KIO_MAX_ATOMIC_IO / (PAGE_SIZE >> 10) + 1)
     #define KIO_MAX_SECTORS (KIO_MAX_ATOMIC_IO * 2)
     

    applied on top of 2.4.3aa3 I get even better results:

    alpha:/home/andrea # time ./rawio-bench
    Opening /dev/raw1
    Allocating 50MB of memory
    Reading from /dev/raw1
    Writing data to /dev/raw1

    real 0m4.898s
    user 0m0.003s
    sys 0m1.138s
    alpha:/home/andrea # time ./rawio-bench
    Opening /dev/raw1
    Allocating 50MB of memory
    Reading from /dev/raw1
    Writing data to /dev/raw1

    real 0m4.935s
    user 0m0.002s
    sys 0m1.159s
    alpha:/home/andrea # time ./rawio-bench
    Opening /dev/raw1
    Allocating 50MB of memory
    Reading from /dev/raw1
    Writing data to /dev/raw1

    real 0m4.925s
    user 0m0.003s
    sys 0m1.162s
    alpha:/home/andrea # time ./rawio-bench
    Opening /dev/raw1
    Allocating 50MB of memory
    Reading from /dev/raw1
    Writing data to /dev/raw1

    real 0m4.941s
    user 0m0.004s
    sys 0m1.166s
    alpha:/home/andrea #

    this is most probably beacuse I'm striping on two scsi disks and this way we can send
    512k requests to each disk.

    NOTE: also userspace reads and writes have to be >=512kbytes in granularity or
    you'll generate small requests because rawio in always synchronous. And using
    decent sized write/reads is good idea anyways to reduce the enter/exit kernel
    overhead.

    However we can probably stay with the 512k atomic I/O otherwise the iobuf
    structure will grow again of an order of 2. With 512k of atomic I/O the kiovec
    structure is just 8756 in size (infact probably I should allocate some of the
    structures dynamically instead of statics inside the kiobuf.. as it is now
    with my patch it's not very reliable as it needs an allocation of order 2).

    BTW, some more description on the testcase: it first read 50mbytes physically
    contigous and then it lseek to zero and writes 50mbytes. Disk throughput in
    mean is 100mbyte/5sec = 20mbyte/sec.

    It uses anonymous memory as in-core backend. It looks perfect testcase to me
    and they're the faster disks I have here around.

    Here the proggy:

    /* 2001 Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> */

    #include <fcntl.h>
    #include <unistd.h>
    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <string.h>
    #include <stdlib.h>
    #include <unistd.h>
    #include <sys/mman.h>
    #include <asm/page.h>

    #define MB (1024*1024)
    #define BUFSIZE (50*MB)

    main()
    {
            int fd, size, ret;
            int filemap;
            char * buf, * end, * tmp;

            printf("Opening /dev/raw1\n");
            fd = open("/dev/raw1", O_RDWR);
            if (fd < 0)
                    perror("open /dev/raw1"), exit(1);

    #if 1
            printf("Allocating %dMB of memory\n", BUFSIZE/MB);
            buf = (char *) malloc(BUFSIZE);
            if (buf < 0)
                    perror("malloc"), exit(1);
            end = (char *) ((unsigned long) (buf + BUFSIZE) & PAGE_MASK);
            buf = (char *) ((unsigned long)(buf + ~PAGE_MASK) & PAGE_MASK);
    #else
            printf("Mapping %dMB of memory\n", BUFSIZE/MB);
            filemap = open("deleteme", O_RDWR|O_TRUNC|O_CREAT, 0644);
            if (filemap < 0)
                    perror("open"), exit(1);
            {
                    int i;
                    char buf[4096];
                    for (i = 0; i < BUFSIZE; i += 4096)
                            write(filemap, &buf, 4096);
            }
            ftruncate(filemap, BUFSIZE);
            buf = mmap(0, BUFSIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, filemap, 0);
            if ((long) buf < 0)
                    perror("mmap"), exit(1);
            if ((unsigned long) buf & ~PAGE_MASK)
                    perror("mmap misaligned"), exit(1);
            end = buf + BUFSIZE;
    #endif
            size = end - buf;

            printf("Reading from /dev/raw1\n");
            ret = read(fd, buf, size);
            if (ret < 0)
                    perror("read /dev/raw1"), exit(1);
            if (ret != size)
                    fprintf(stderr, "read only %d of %d bytes\n", ret, size);
            printf("Writing data to /dev/raw1\n");
            if (lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_SET) < 0)
                    perror("lseek"), exit(1);
            ret = write(fd, buf, size);
            if (ret < 0)
                    perror("read /dev/raw1"), exit(1);
            if (ret != size)
                    fprintf(stderr, "write only %d of %d bytes\n", ret, size);
    }

    Andrea
    -
    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/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 06 2001 - 12:50:24 EDT