[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1258407135.3533.152.camel@cail>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:32:15 -0500
From: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@...com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Block IO Controller V2 - some results
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 16:14 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 03:51:00PM -0500, Alan D. Brunelle wrote:
> > Hi Vivek:
> >
> > I'm finding some things that don't quite seem right - executive
> > summary:
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> Thanks a lot for such an extensive testing and test results. I am still
> digesting the results but I thought I will make a quick note about writes.
> This patchset works only for sync IO. If you are performing buffered
> writes then you will not see any service differentiation. Providing
> support for buffered write path is in TODO list.
Ah, I thought you meant sync I/O versus async I/O. So do you mean that
the testing should use _direct_ I/O (bypassing the cache)?
>
> >
> > o I think the apportionment algorithm doesn't work consistently well
> > for writes.
> >
> > o I think there are problems with significant performance loss when
> > doing random I/Os.
>
> This concerns me. I had a quick look and as per your results, even with
> group_idle=0 you are seeing this regression. I guess this might be coming
> from the fact that we idle on sync-noidle workload per group and that
> idling becomes significant as number of groups increase.
>
> Thanks
> Vivek
--
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