[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D5E0BE2.6020104@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:04:18 +0800
From: Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
CC: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chad Talbott <ctalbott@...gle.com>,
Divyesh Shah <dpshah@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6 v4] cfq-iosched: Introduce vdisktime and io weight
for CFQ queue
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 03:47:16PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
>
> [..]
>> +/*
>> + * The time when a CFQ queue is put onto a service tree is recoreded in
>> + * cfqq->reposition_time. Currently, we check the first priority CFQ queues
>> + * on each service tree, and select the workload type that contains the lowest
>> + * reposition_time CFQ queue among them.
>> + */
>> static enum wl_type_t cfq_choose_wl(struct cfq_data *cfqd,
>> struct cfq_group *cfqg, enum wl_prio_t prio)
>> {
>> struct cfq_entity *cfqe;
>> + struct cfq_queue *cfqq;
>> + unsigned long lowest_start_time;
>> int i;
>> - bool key_valid = false;
>> - unsigned long lowest_key = 0;
>> + bool time_valid = false;
>> enum wl_type_t cur_best = SYNC_NOIDLE_WORKLOAD;
>>
>> + /*
>> + * TODO: We may take io priority and io class into account when
>> + * choosing a workload type. But for the time being just make use of
>> + * reposition_time only.
>> + */
>> for (i = 0; i <= SYNC_WORKLOAD; ++i) {
>> - /* select the one with lowest rb_key */
>> cfqe = cfq_rb_first(service_tree_for(cfqg, prio, i));
>> - if (cfqe &&
>> - (!key_valid || time_before(cfqe->rb_key, lowest_key))) {
>> - lowest_key = cfqe->rb_key;
>> + cfqq = cfqq_of_entity(cfqe);
>> + if (cfqe && (!time_valid ||
>> + time_before(cfqq->reposition_time,
>> + lowest_start_time))) {
>> + lowest_start_time = cfqq->reposition_time;
>
> Gui,
>
> Have you had a chance to run some mixed workloads in a group (some sync,
> some async and some sync-idle queues), and see how latency and throughput
> of sync-idle workload changes due to this "resposition_time" logic. I
> just want to make sure that latency of sync-noidle workload does not
> go up as that's the workload that people care and gets noticed first.
Hi Vivek,
I made a quick test by using fio. It seems the number changes little
between vanilla kernel and patched kernel.
Vanilla: SYNC read SYNC-NOIDLE read ASYNC write
1. 23,640KB/s 5.40 ---- 6,696KB/s 19.07 ---- 50,142KB/s 128.00
2. 24,459KB/s 5.22 ---- 6,775KB/s 18.86 ---- 47,349KB/s 129.89
3. 25,929KB/s 4.93 ---- 7,378KB/s 17.32 ---- 32,350KB/s 131.88
Patched: SYNC read SYNC-NOIDLE read ASYNC write
1. 24,000KB/s 5.32 ---- 6,942KB/s 18.39 ---- 30,860KB/s 135.95
2. 23,678KB/s 5.40 ---- 7,274KB/s 17.58 ---- 67,432KB/s 120.44
3. 23,004KB/s 5.55 ---- 6,621KB/s 19.30 ---- 36,536KB/s 148.64
Thanks,
Gui
--
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