Message-ID: <4e5e476b0909290014u1374e65an859528441373510f@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:14:48 +0200
From:	Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Ulrich Lukas <stellplatz-nr.13a@...enparkplatz.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
	nauman@...gle.com, dpshah@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	mikew@...gle.com, fchecconi@...il.com, paolo.valente@...more.it,
	ryov@...inux.co.jp, fernando@....ntt.co.jp, jmoyer@...hat.com,
	dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	righi.andrea@...il.com, m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com, agk@...hat.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	jmarchan@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	riel@...hat.com, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	Tobias Oetiker <tobi@...iker.ch>
Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10

Hi Mike,
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 14:18 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 07:51:14PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
>> I guess changing class to IDLE should have helped a bit as now this is
>> equivalent to setting the quantum to 1 and after dispatching one request
>> to disk, CFQ will always expire the writer once. So it might happen that
>> by the the reader preempted writer, we have less number of requests in
>> disk and lesser latency for this reader.
>
> I expected SCHED_IDLE to be better than setting quantum to 1, because
> max is quantum*4 if you aren't IDLE.  But that's not what happened.  I
> just retested with all knobs set back to stock, fairness off, and
> quantum set to 1 with everything running nice 0.  2.8 seconds avg :-/

Idle doesn't work very well for async writes, since the writer process
will just send its writes to the page cache.
The real writeback will happen in the context of a kernel thread, with
best effort scheduling class.

>
>> > I saw
>> > the reference to Vivek's patch, and gave it a shot.  Makes a large
>> > difference.
>> >                                                            Avg
>> > perf stat     12.82     7.19     8.49     5.76     9.32    8.7     anticipatory
>> >               16.24   175.82   154.38   228.97   147.16  144.5     noop
>> >               43.23    57.39    96.13   148.25   180.09  105.0     deadline
>> >                9.15    14.51     9.39    15.06     9.90   11.6     cfq fairness=0 dd=nice 0
>> >               12.22     9.85    12.55     9.88    15.06   11.9     cfq fairness=0 dd=nice 19
>> >                9.77    13.19    11.78    17.40     9.51   11.9     cfq fairness=0 dd=SCHED_IDLE
>> >                4.59     2.74     4.70     3.45     4.69    4.0     cfq fairness=1 dd=nice 0
>> >                3.79     4.66     2.66     5.15     3.03    3.8     cfq fairness=1 dd=nice 19
>> >                2.79     4.73     2.79     4.02     2.50    3.3     cfq fairness=1 dd=SCHED_IDLE
>> >
>>
>> Hmm.., looks like average latency went down only in  case of fairness=1
>> and not in case of fairness=0. (Looking at previous mail, average vanilla
>> cfq latencies were around 12 seconds).
>
> Yup.
>
>> Are you running all this in root group or have you put writers and readers
>> into separate cgroups?
>
> No cgroups here.
>
>> If everything is running in root group, then I am curious why latency went
>> down in case of fairness=1. The only thing fairness=1 parameter does is
>> that it lets complete all the requests from previous queue before start
>> dispatching from next queue. On top of this is valid only if no preemption
>> took place. In your test case, konsole should preempt the writer so
>> practically fairness=1 might not make much difference.
>
> fairness=1 very definitely makes a very large difference.  All of those
> cfq numbers were logged in back to back runs.
>
>> In fact now Jens has committed a patch which achieves the similar effect as
>> fairness=1 for async queues.
>
> Yeah, I was there yesterday.  I speculated that that would hurt my
> reader, but rearranging things didn't help one bit.  Playing with merge,
> I managed to give dd ~7% more throughput, and injured poor reader even
> more.  (problem analysis via hammer/axe not always most effective;)
>
>> commit 5ad531db6e0f3c3c985666e83d3c1c4d53acccf9
>> Author: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
>> Date:   Fri Jul 3 12:57:48 2009 +0200
>>
>>     cfq-iosched: drain device queue before switching to a sync queue
>>
>>     To lessen the impact of async IO on sync IO, let the device drain of
>>     any async IO in progress when switching to a sync cfqq that has idling
>>     enabled.
>>
>>
>> If everything is in separate cgroups, then we should have seen latency
>> improvements in case of fairness=0 case also. I am little perplexed here..
>>
>> Thanks
>> Vivek
>
>

Thanks,
Corrado


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________

dott. Corrado Zoccolo                          mailto:czoccolo@...il.com
PhD - Department of Computer Science - University of Pisa, Italy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The self-confidence of a warrior is not the self-confidence of the average
man. The average man seeks certainty in the eyes of the onlooker and calls
that self-confidence. The warrior seeks impeccability in his own eyes and
calls that humbleness.
                               Tales of Power - C. Castaneda
--
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