[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1272019697.24780.455.camel@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:48:17 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: CFQ read performance regression
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 17:53 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 22-04-10 12:23:29, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > I have very little understanding of I/O scheduling but my idea of what's
> > really needed here is to realize that one queue is not able to saturate
> > the device and there's a large backlog of requests on other queues that
> > are waiting to be served. Is something like that implementable?
> I see a problem with defining "saturate the device" - but maybe we could
> measure something like "completed requests / sec" and try autotuning
> slice_idle to maximize this value (hopefully the utility function should
> be concave so we can just use "local optimization").
Yeah, detecting saturation may be difficult.
I guess that function depends on a lot of other things as well,
including seek times, etc. Not easy to optimize.
I'm still wondering what makes such a difference between CFQ on 2.6.16
and CFQ on 2.6.27-34, why is the one in older kernels performing so much
better in this situation?
What should we tell our customers? The default settings should at least
handle these systems a bit better.
Thanks,
Miklos
--
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