linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cfq-iosched: non-rot devices do not need queue merging

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

Message-ID: <4e5e476b0912301321m7d6ab48dv58600b336b4a4cdd@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:21:08 +0100
From:	Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfq-iosched: non-rot devices do not need queue merging

On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30 2009, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 30 2009, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
>> >> Non rotational devices' performances are not affected by
>> >> distance of requests, so there is no point in having overhead
>> >> to merge queues of nearby requests.
>> >
>> > If the distance is zero, it may still make a big difference (at least
>> > for writes). This check would be better as "ncq and doesn't suck", ala
>> >
>> >        blk_queue_nonrot(q) && tagged
>> >
>> > like we do elsewhere.
>>
>> For reads, though, even flash cards and netbook ssds are completely
>> unaffected. I have done few experiments on my available disks:
>> * http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3525644/service_time.png (I used the
>> program: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3525644/stride.c to get the graphs).
>
> Completely agree, it's writes that matter (as mentioned).
>
>> For distance 0, I think request merging will be more effective than
>> queue merging, moreover I think the multi-thread trick to have large
>
> Definitely true, but we don't allow cross cfqq merges to begin with.
>
>> I/O depth is used for reads, not writes (where simply issuing buffered
>> writes already achieves a similar effect), so I think it is safe to
>> disable it for all non-rotational devices.
>
> That still leaves direct writes. Granted it's a problem with a huge
> scope, but still.
Maybe I can mark sync queues that have write requests, and only add
those ones to the prio tree.
For writes, merging queues (and therefore requests) can probably help
even the smart ssds.

Thanks,
Corrado
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
>
>



-- 
__________________________________________________________________________

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/