linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] cfq-iosched: improve latency for no-idle queues

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:57:02 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>
Cc:	Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] cfq-iosched: improve latency for no-idle queues

On Mon, Oct 19 2009, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> This patch series is intended to improve I/O latency, addressing an often 
> neglected, important subset of workloads: the ones for which cfq currently 
> prefers not to do any idling.
> 
> Those are the ones that would benefit most from having low latency, in fact 
> they are any of:
> * processes with large think times (e.g. interactive ones like file managers)
> * seeky (e.g. programs faulting in their code at startup)
> * or marked as no-idle from upper levels.
> 
> The patch series addresses this by:
> * reducing queues' timeslice when many queues have pending I/O
> * separating queues with different priorities and different characteristics in 
> different service trees, each with an allocated time slice
> * enable idling when switching between service trees, even for queues that 
> would not have idling enabled otherwise.
> 
> This provides various benefits:
> * service tree insertion code is simplified, since it doesn't need to cope with 
> priorities any more.
> * high priority no_idle queues are no longer penalized when competing with 
> lower priority, idling queues
> * seeky and no_idle queues have their fair share of disk time, without 
> penalizing NCQ drives' performances, since they can all dispatch together, 
> filling up the available NCQ slots.
> 
> On a non-NCQ capable drive, a workload of 4 random readers competing with 
> sequential writer, the maximum latency experienced by readers decreased from > 
> 500ms to about 160ms.

Thanks, interesting series. I'll look over the patches as time permits
and try and get some testing time in when I get back.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/