lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:31:24 +0800 From: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com> To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> Cc: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "czoccolo@...il.com" <czoccolo@...il.com> Subject: Re: [patch 3/3]cfq-iosched: don't idle if a deep seek queue is slow On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 10:28 +0800, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 09:36:42AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 23:06 +0800, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > On 2010-11-08 15:20, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 10:07:25AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > > > >> If a deep seek queue slowly deliver requests but disk is much faster, idle > > > >> for the queue just wastes disk throughput. If the queue delevers all requests > > > >> before half its slice is used, the patch disable idle for it. > > > >> In my test, application delivers 32 requests one time, the disk can accept > > > >> 128 requests at maxium and disk is fast. without the patch, the throughput > > > >> is just around 30m/s, while with it, the speed is about 80m/s. The disk is > > > >> a SSD, but is detected as a rotational disk. I can configure it as SSD, but > > > >> I thought the deep seek queue logic should be fixed too, for example, > > > >> considering a fast raid. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi Shaohua, > > > > > > > > So looks like you are trying to cut down queue idling in the case when > > > > device is fast and idling hurts. That's a noble goal, just that detetction > > > > of this condition only for deep queues does not seem to cover lots of > > > > cases. Manually one can set slice_idle=0 to handle this situation. > > > > > > > > What about if you have lots of sequential queues (not deep) and they all > > > > will still idle. > > > > > > > > Secondly, what if driver is just buffering lots of requests in its device > > > > queue and not necessarily device is processing the reuqests faster. > > > > > > That is not a valid concern, a driver should never extract more than it > > > can process (pretty much) immediately. > > > > > > > So I think it is a good idea to cut down on idling if we can find that > > > > underlying device is fast and idling on queue might hurt more. But > > > > discovering this only using deep queues does not sound very appleaing to > > > > me. This is help only a particular workload which is driving deep queues. > > > > So if there was a generic mechanism to tackle this, that would be much > > > > better. > > > > > > Agree, we could use better metrics for this. > > Agree we'd better have a better method to measure device speed, but this > > seems not easy. Even in a fast device, a request might take long time to > > finish when NCQ is enabled. Before we have generic mechanism, we still > > need fix some particular cases. > > Do you have a real workload for this case or it is just one of the synthetic > workload simulated using fio? No, no real workload. We do a lot of fio tests with different scripts, this is from one of our tests. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists