Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1232976

Re: fuse scalability part 1

Path csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From Ashish Samant <ashish.samant@oracle.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: fuse scalability part 1
Date Fri, 25 Sep 2015 20:00:01 +0200
Message-ID <qcFrP-8B-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <pruZI-21q-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <qckdI-3Kz-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <qcA8P-14l-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Reply-To ashish.samant@oracle.com
User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit
X-Source-IP aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]
Sender robomod@news.nic.it
List-ID <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved robomod@news.nic.it
Lines 30
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, fuse-devel <fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>, Srinivas Eeda <srinivas.eeda@oracle.com>
X-Original-Date Fri, 25 Sep 2015 10:53:56 -0700
X-Original-Message-ID <56058A34.8050900@oracle.com>
X-Original-References <20150518151336.GA9960@tucsk> <56044C66.1090207@oracle.com> <CAJfpegsgjV2ePkdjZDAi5GoJ5M-Zeoy10v-5p+bzyHVAnGQpuA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-Sender linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Xref csiph.com linux.kernel:1232976

Show key headers only | View raw


On 09/25/2015 05:11 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Ashish Samant <ashish.samant@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> We did some performance testing without these patches and with these patches
>> (with -o clone_fd  option specified). We did 2 types of tests:
>>
>> 1. Throughput test : We did some parallel dd tests to read/write to FUSE
>> based database fs on a system with 8 numa nodes and 288 cpus. The
>> performance here is almost equal to the the per-numa patches we submitted a
>> while back.Please find results attached.
> Interesting.  This means, that serving the request on a different NUMA
> node as the one where the request originated doesn't appear to make
> the performance much worse.
>
> Thanks,
> Miklos
Yes. The main performance gain is due to the reduced contention on one 
spinlock(fc->lock) , especially with a large number of requests.
Splitting fc->fiq per cloned device will definitely improve performance 
further and we can  experiment further with per numa / cpu cloned device.

Thanks,
Ashish

--
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/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: fuse scalability part 1 Ashish Samant <ashish.samant@oracle.com> - 2015-09-24 21:20 +0200
  Re: fuse scalability part 1 Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> - 2015-09-25 14:20 +0200
    Re: fuse scalability part 1 Ashish Samant <ashish.samant@oracle.com> - 2015-09-25 20:00 +0200
    Re: fuse scalability part 1 Srinivas Eeda <srinivas.eeda@oracle.com> - 2015-09-29 08:20 +0200

csiph-web