Message-ID: <49C1BE1E.9060707@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:38:06 +0800
From:	Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
CC:	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, nauman@...gle.com,
	dpshah@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com, mikew@...gle.com,
	fchecconi@...il.com, paolo.valente@...more.it,
	jens.axboe@...cle.com, ryov@...inux.co.jp,
	fernando@...ellilink.co.jp, s-uchida@...jp.nec.com,
	taka@...inux.co.jp, arozansk@...hat.com, jmoyer@...hat.com,
	oz-kernel@...hat.com, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	menage@...gle.com, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] Documentation

Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 03:23:29PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
>> Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>>> Hi Vivek,
>>>>
>>>> I would be interested in knowing if these are the results expected?
>>>>
>>> Hi Dhaval, 
>>>
>>> Good question. Keeping current expectation in mind, yes these are expected
>>> results. To begin with, current expectations are that try to emulate
>>> cfq behavior and the kind of service differentiation we get between
>>> threads of different priority, same kind of service differentiation we
>>> should get from different cgroups.
>>>  
>>> Having said that, in theory a more accurate estimate should be amount 
>>> of actual disk time a queue/cgroup got. I have put a tracing message
>>> to keep track of total service received by a queue. If you run "blktrace"
>>> then you can see that. Ideally, total service received by two threads
>>> over a period of time should be in same proportion as their cgroup
>>> weights.
>>>
>>> It will not be easy to achive it given the constraints we have got in
>>> terms of how to accurately we can account for disk time actually used by a
>>> queue in certain situations. So to begin with I am targetting that
>>> try to meet same kind of service differentation between cgroups as
>>> cfq provides between threads and then slowly refine it to see how
>>> close one can come to get accurate numbers in terms of "total_serivce"
>>> received by each queue.
>>   Hi Vivek,
>>
>>   I simply tested with blktrace opened. I create two groups and set ioprio
>>   4 and 7 respectively(the corresponding weight should 4:1, right?),
> 
> Hi Gui,
> 
> Thanks for testing. You are right about weight proportions.
> 
>> and 
>>   start two dd concurrently. UUIC, Ideally, the proportion of service two 
>>   dd got should be 4:1 in a period of time when they are running. I extract 
>>   *served* value from blktrace output and sum them up. I found the proportion 
>>   of the sum of *served* value is about 1.7:1
>>   Am i missing something?
> 
> Actually getting the service proportion in same ratio as weight proportion
> is quite hard for sync queues. The biggest issue is that many a times sync
> queues are not continuously backlogged and they do some IO and then dispatch
> a next round of requests.
> 
> Most of the time idling seems to be the solution for giving an impression
> that sync queue is continuously backlogged but it also has potential to
> reduce throughput on faster hardware.
> 
> Anyway, can you please send me your complete blkparse output. There are
> many a places where code has been designed to favor throughput than
> fairness. Looking at your blkparse output, will give me better idea what's
> the issue in your setup.
> 
> Also please try the attached patch. I have experimented with waiting for
> new request to come before sync queue is expired. It helps me in getting
> the fairness numbers at least with noop on non-queueing rotational media.
> 
> I also have introduced a new tunable "fairness". Above code will kick in
> only if this variable is set to 1. Many a places where we favor throughput
> over fairness, I plan to use this variable as condition to let user
> decide whether to choose fairness over throughput. I am not sure at how many
> places it really makes sense, but it atleast gives us something to play and
> compare the throughput in two cases.
> 
> This patch applies on my current tree after removing tomost patceh
> "anticipatory scheduling changes". My code has changed a bit since the
> posting, so you might have to message this patch a bit.

  Hi Vivek,

  This time I run two dd with pure sync read like this:
  dd if=/mnt/500M.1 of=/dev/null, and the proportion of service got by each
  is very close to the proportion of their weight.
  Previously, I run concurrent dd like this:
  dd if=/mnt/500M.1 of=/mnt/500M.2

  I'd like to try this patch out.

> 
> Thanks
> Vivek
> 
> 
> DESC
> io-controller: idle for sometime on sync queue before expiring it
> EDESC 
> 
> o When a sync queue expires, in many cases it might be empty and then
>   it will be deleted from the active tree. This will lead to a scenario
>   where out of two competing queues, only one is on the tree and when a
>   new queue is selected, vtime jump takes place and we don't see services
>   provided in proportion to weight.
> 
> o In general this is a fundamental problem with fairness of sync queues
>   where queues are not continuously backlogged. Looks like idling is
>   only solution to make sure such kind of queues can get some decent amount
>   of disk bandwidth in the face of competion from continusouly backlogged
>   queues. But excessive idling has potential to reduce performance on SSD
>   and disks with commnad queuing.
> 
> o This patch experiments with waiting for next request to come before a
>   queue is expired after it has consumed its time slice. This can ensure
>   more accurate fairness numbers in some cases.
> 
> o Introduced a tunable "fairness". If set, io-controller will put more
>   focus on getting fairness right than getting throughput right. 
> 
> 
> ---
>  block/blk-sysfs.c   |    7 ++++
>  block/elevator-fq.c |   85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  block/elevator-fq.h |   12 +++++++
>  3 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux1/block/elevator-fq.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux1.orig/block/elevator-fq.h	2009-03-18 17:34:46.000000000 -0400
> +++ linux1/block/elevator-fq.h	2009-03-18 17:34:53.000000000 -0400
> @@ -318,6 +318,13 @@ struct elv_fq_data {
>  	unsigned long long rate_sampling_start; /*sampling window start jifies*/
>  	/* number of sectors finished io during current sampling window */
>  	unsigned long rate_sectors_current;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If set to 1, will disable many optimizations done for boost
> +	 * throughput and focus more on providing fairness for sync
> +	 * queues.
> +	 */
> +	int fairness;
>  };
>  
>  extern int elv_slice_idle;
> @@ -340,6 +347,7 @@ enum elv_queue_state_flags {
>  	ELV_QUEUE_FLAG_idle_window,	  /* elevator slice idling enabled */
>  	ELV_QUEUE_FLAG_wait_request,	  /* waiting for a request */
>  	ELV_QUEUE_FLAG_slice_new,	  /* no requests dispatched in slice */
> +	ELV_QUEUE_FLAG_wait_busy,	  /* wait for this queue to get busy */
>  	ELV_QUEUE_FLAG_NR,
>  };
>  
> @@ -362,6 +370,7 @@ ELV_IO_QUEUE_FLAG_FNS(sync)
>  ELV_IO_QUEUE_FLAG_FNS(wait_request)
>  ELV_IO_QUEUE_FLAG_FNS(idle_window)
>  ELV_IO_QUEUE_FLAG_FNS(slice_new)
> +ELV_IO_QUEUE_FLAG_FNS(wait_busy)
>  
>  static inline struct io_service_tree *
>  io_entity_service_tree(struct io_entity *entity)
> @@ -554,6 +563,9 @@ static inline struct io_queue *elv_looku
>  extern ssize_t elv_slice_idle_show(struct request_queue *q, char *name);
>  extern ssize_t elv_slice_idle_store(struct request_queue *q, const char *name,
>  						size_t count);
> +extern ssize_t elv_fairness_show(struct request_queue *q, char *name);
> +extern ssize_t elv_fairness_store(struct request_queue *q, const char *name,
> +						size_t count);
>  
>  /* Functions used by elevator.c */
>  extern int elv_init_fq_data(struct request_queue *q, struct elevator_queue *e);
> Index: linux1/block/elevator-fq.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux1.orig/block/elevator-fq.c	2009-03-18 17:34:46.000000000 -0400
> +++ linux1/block/elevator-fq.c	2009-03-18 17:34:53.000000000 -0400
> @@ -1837,6 +1837,44 @@ void elv_ioq_served(struct io_queue *ioq
>  			ioq->total_service);
>  }
>  
> +/* Functions to show and store fairness value through sysfs */
> +ssize_t elv_fairness_show(struct request_queue *q, char *name)
> +{
> +	struct elv_fq_data *efqd;
> +	unsigned int data;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(q->queue_lock, flags);
> +	efqd = &q->elevator->efqd;
> +	data = efqd->fairness;
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(q->queue_lock, flags);
> +	return sprintf(name, "%d\n", data);
> +}
> +
> +ssize_t elv_fairness_store(struct request_queue *q, const char *name,
> +			  size_t count)
> +{
> +	struct elv_fq_data *efqd;
> +	unsigned int data;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	char *p = (char *)name;
> +
> +	data = simple_strtoul(p, &p, 10);
> +
> +	if (data < 0)
> +		data = 0;
> +	else if (data > INT_MAX)
> +		data = INT_MAX;
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(q->queue_lock, flags);
> +	efqd = &q->elevator->efqd;
> +	efqd->fairness = data;
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(q->queue_lock, flags);
> +
> +	return count;
> +}
> +
>  /* Functions to show and store elv_idle_slice value through sysfs */
>  ssize_t elv_slice_idle_show(struct request_queue *q, char *name)
>  {
> @@ -2263,10 +2301,11 @@ void __elv_ioq_slice_expired(struct requ
>  	assert_spin_locked(q->queue_lock);
>  	elv_log_ioq(efqd, ioq, "slice expired upd=%d", budget_update);
>  
> -	if (elv_ioq_wait_request(ioq))
> +	if (elv_ioq_wait_request(ioq) || elv_ioq_wait_busy(ioq))
>  		del_timer(&efqd->idle_slice_timer);
>  
>  	elv_clear_ioq_wait_request(ioq);
> +	elv_clear_ioq_wait_busy(ioq);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * if ioq->slice_end = 0, that means a queue was expired before first
> @@ -2482,8 +2521,9 @@ void elv_ioq_request_add(struct request_
>  		 * immediately and flag that we must not expire this queue
>  		 * just now
>  		 */
> -		if (elv_ioq_wait_request(ioq)) {
> +		if (elv_ioq_wait_request(ioq) || elv_ioq_wait_busy(ioq)) {
>  			del_timer(&efqd->idle_slice_timer);
> +			elv_clear_ioq_wait_busy(ioq);
>  			blk_start_queueing(q);
>  		}
>  	} else if (elv_should_preempt(q, ioq, rq)) {
> @@ -2519,6 +2559,9 @@ void elv_idle_slice_timer(unsigned long 
>  
>  	if (ioq) {
>  
> +		if (elv_ioq_wait_busy(ioq))
> +			goto expire;
> +
>  		/*
>  		 * expired
>  		 */
> @@ -2546,7 +2589,7 @@ out_cont:
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(q->queue_lock, flags);
>  }
>  
> -void elv_ioq_arm_slice_timer(struct request_queue *q)
> +void elv_ioq_arm_slice_timer(struct request_queue *q, int wait_for_busy)
>  {
>  	struct elv_fq_data *efqd = &q->elevator->efqd;
>  	struct io_queue *ioq = elv_active_ioq(q->elevator);
> @@ -2563,15 +2606,27 @@ void elv_ioq_arm_slice_timer(struct requ
>  		return;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * still requests with the driver, don't idle
> +	 * idle is disabled, either manually or by past process history
>  	 */
> -	if (efqd->rq_in_driver)
> +	if (!efqd->elv_slice_idle || !elv_ioq_idle_window(ioq))
>  		return;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * idle is disabled, either manually or by past process history
> +	 * This queue has consumed its time slice. We are waiting only for
> +	 * it to become busy before we select next queue for dispatch.
>  	 */
> -	if (!efqd->elv_slice_idle || !elv_ioq_idle_window(ioq))
> +	if (efqd->fairness && wait_for_busy) {
> +		elv_mark_ioq_wait_busy(ioq);
> +		sl = efqd->elv_slice_idle;
> +		mod_timer(&efqd->idle_slice_timer, jiffies + sl);
> +		elv_log(efqd, "arm idle: %lu wait busy=1", sl);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * still requests with the driver, don't idle
> +	 */
> +	if (efqd->rq_in_driver)
>  		return;
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -2628,6 +2683,12 @@ void *elv_fq_select_ioq(struct request_q
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> +	/* We are waiting for this queue to become busy before it expires.*/
> +	if (efqd->fairness && elv_ioq_wait_busy(ioq)) {
> +		ioq = NULL;
> +		goto keep_queue;
> +	}
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * The active queue has run out of time, expire it and select new.
>  	 */
> @@ -2802,10 +2863,14 @@ void elv_ioq_completed_request(struct re
>  			elv_ioq_set_prio_slice(q, ioq);
>  			elv_clear_ioq_slice_new(ioq);
>  		}
> -		if (elv_ioq_slice_used(ioq) || elv_ioq_class_idle(ioq))
> +		if (elv_ioq_class_idle(ioq))
>  			elv_ioq_slice_expired(q, 1);
> -		else if (sync && !ioq->nr_queued)
> -			elv_ioq_arm_slice_timer(q);
> +		else if (sync && !ioq->nr_queued) {
> +			if (elv_ioq_slice_used(ioq))
> +				elv_ioq_arm_slice_timer(q, 1);
> +			else
> +				elv_ioq_arm_slice_timer(q, 0);
> +		}
>  	}
>  
>  	if (!efqd->rq_in_driver)
> Index: linux1/block/blk-sysfs.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux1.orig/block/blk-sysfs.c	2009-03-18 17:34:28.000000000 -0400
> +++ linux1/block/blk-sysfs.c	2009-03-18 17:34:53.000000000 -0400
> @@ -282,6 +282,12 @@ static struct queue_sysfs_entry queue_sl
>  	.show = elv_slice_idle_show,
>  	.store = elv_slice_idle_store,
>  };
> +
> +static struct queue_sysfs_entry queue_fairness_entry = {
> +	.attr = {.name = "fairness", .mode = S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR },
> +	.show = elv_fairness_show,
> +	.store = elv_fairness_store,
> +};
>  #endif
>  static struct attribute *default_attrs[] = {
>  	&queue_requests_entry.attr,
> @@ -296,6 +302,7 @@ static struct attribute *default_attrs[]
>  	&queue_iostats_entry.attr,
>  #ifdef CONFIG_ELV_FAIR_QUEUING
>  	&queue_slice_idle_entry.attr,
> +	&queue_fairness_entry.attr,
>  #endif
>  	NULL,
>  };
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Regards
Gui Jianfeng

--
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