[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTindzlcDSA9zZBNYXv9o-RGtpysb0_IYp9UFlM2_@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 16:45:10 +0200
From: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cfq-iosched: fixing RQ_NOIDLE handling.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 01:03:08PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com> writes:
>>
>> > Hi Jens,
>> > patch 8e55063 "cfq-iosched: fix corner cases in idling logic", is
>> > suspected for some regressions on high end hardware.
>> > The two patches from this series:
>> > - [PATCH 1/2] cfq-iosched: fix tree-wide handling of rq_noidle
>> > - [PATCH 2/2] cfq-iosched: RQ_NOIDLE enabled for SYNC_WORKLOAD
>> > fix two issues that I have identified, related to how RQ_NOIDLE is
>> > used by the upper layers.
>> > First patch makes sure that a RQ_NOIDLE coming after a sequence of
>> > possibly idling requests from the same queue on the no-idle tree will
>> > clear the noidle_tree_requires_idle flag.
>> > Second patch enables RQ_NOIDLE for queues in the idling tree,
>> > restoring the behaviour pre-8e55063 patch.
>>
>> Hi, Corrado,
>>
>> I ran your kernel through my tests. Here are the results, up against
>> vanilla, deadline, and the blk_yield patch set:
>>
>> just just
>> fs_mark fio mixed
>> -------------------------------+--------------
>> deadline 529.44 151.4 | 450.0 78.2
>> vanilla cfq 107.88 164.4 | 6.6 137.2
>> blk_yield cfq 530.82 158.7 | 113.2 78.6
>> corrado cfq 80.82 138.1 | 4.5 130.7
>>
>> fs_mark results are in files/second, fio results are in MB/s. All
>> results are the average of 5 runs. In order to get results for the
>> mixed workload for both vanilla and Corrado's kernels, I had to extend
>> the runtime from 30s to 300s.
>>
>> So, the changes proposed in this thread actually make performance worse
>> across the board.
>>
>> I re-ran my tests against a RHEL 5 kernel (which is based on 2.6.18),
>> and it shows that fs_mark performance is much better than stock CFQ in
>> 2.6.35-rc3, and the mixed workload results are much the same as they are
>> now (which is to say, the fs_mark process is completely starved by the
>> sequential reader). So, that problem has existed for a long time.
>>
>> I'm still in the process of collecting data from production servers and
>> will report back with my findings there.
>
> Hi Jeff and all,
>
> How about if we simply get rid of idling on RQ_NOIDLE threads (as
> corrado's patch series does) and not try to solve the problem of fsync
> being starved in the presence of sequential readers. I mean it might just
> be a theoritical problem and not many people are running into it. That's
> how CFQ has been behaving for long-2 time and if nobody is complaining
> then we probably don't have to fix it.
8e55063 was done to fix theoretical problems as well :)
I think, instead, that Jeff's approach of yielding the queue when a
better knowledge is present is good, and this set of patches is not
intended as a replacement. It is intended just to fix some regressions
introduced by a previous commit, and I hope it could work together
with Jeff's patch.
Clearly, if RQ_NOIDLE is used only in the places that Jeff is already
handling, then it is better to completely remove RQ_NOIDLE handling,
so my patch set becomes obsolete.
Thanks,
Corrado
>
> Thanks
> Vivek
>
--
__________________________________________________________________________
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists