[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100203082259.GO5733@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:23:00 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] readahead: limit readahead size for small devices
On Wed, Feb 03 2010, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 03:38:26AM +0800, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 02 2010, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > Linus reports a _really_ small & slow (505kB, 15kB/s) USB device,
> > > on which blkid runs unpleasantly slow. He manages to optimize the blkid
> > > reads down to 1kB+16kB, but still kernel read-ahead turns it into 48kB.
> > >
> > > lseek 0, read 1024 => readahead 4 pages (start of file)
> > > lseek 1536, read 16384 => readahead 8 pages (page contiguous)
> > >
> > > The readahead heuristics involved here are reasonable ones in general.
> > > So it's good to fix blkid with fadvise(RANDOM), as Linus already did.
> > >
> > > For the kernel part, Linus suggests:
> > > So maybe we could be less aggressive about read-ahead when the size of
> > > the device is small? Turning a 16kB read into a 64kB one is a big deal,
> > > when it's about 15% of the whole device!
> > >
> > > This looks reasonable: smaller device tend to be slower (USB sticks as
> > > well as micro/mobile/old hard disks).
> > >
> > > Given that the non-rotational attribute is not always reported, we can
> > > take disk size as a max readahead size hint. We use a formula that
> > > generates the following concrete limits:
> > >
> > > disk size readahead size
> > > (scale by 4) (scale by 2)
> > > 2M 4k
> > > 8M 8k
> > > 32M 16k
> > > 128M 32k
> > > 512M 64k
> > > 2G 128k
> > > 8G 256k
> > > 32G 512k
> > > 128G 1024k
> >
> > I'm not sure the size part makes a ton of sense. You can have really
> > fast small devices, and large slow devices. One real world example are
> > the Sun FMod SSD devices, which are only 22GB in size but are faster
> > than the Intel X25-E SLC disks.
> >
> > What makes it even worse for these devices is that they are often
> > attached to fatter controllers than ahci, where command overhead is
> > larger.
>
> Ah, good to know about this fast 22GB SSD.
>
> > Running your script on such a device yields (I enlarged the read-count
> > by 2, makes it more reproducible):
> >
> > MARVELL SD88SA02 MP1F
> >
> > rasize 1st 2nd
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 4k 41 MB/s 41 MB/s
> > 16k 85 MB/s 81 MB/s
> > 32k 102 MB/s 109 MB/s
> > 64k 125 MB/s 144 MB/s
> > 128k 183 MB/s 185 MB/s
> > 256k 216 MB/s 216 MB/s
> > 512k 216 MB/s 236 MB/s
> > 1024k 251 MB/s 252 MB/s
> > 2M 258 MB/s 258 MB/s
> > 4M 266 MB/s 266 MB/s
> > 8M 266 MB/s 266 MB/s
> >
> > So for that device, 1M-2M looks like the sweet spot, with even needing
> > 4-8M to fully reach full throughput.
>
> Thanks for the data! I updated the formula to (16GB device => 1MB
> readahead). However the limit in this patch is only true for <4GB
> devices, since the default readahead size is merely 512KB.
Thanks Wu, you can add my acked-by.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists