[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D70AD5B.8030302@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:14:03 +0800
From: Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
CC: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]cfq-iosched: give busy sync queue no dispatch limit
Shaohua Li wrote:
> If there are a sync and an async queue and the sync queue's think time is small,
> we can ignore the sync queue's dispatch quantum. Because the sync queue will
> always preempt the async queue, we don't need to care about async's latency.
> This can fix a performance regression of aiostress test, which is introduced by
> commit f8ae6e3eb825. The issue should exist even without the commit, but the
> commit amplifies the impact.
>
> The initial post does the same optimization for RT queue too, but since I have
> no real workload for it, Vivek suggests to drop it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
This fix looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
Thanks,
Gui
> ---
> block/cfq-iosched.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux/block/cfq-iosched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/block/cfq-iosched.c 2011-03-04 09:50:22.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux/block/cfq-iosched.c 2011-03-04 10:22:16.000000000 +0800
> @@ -238,6 +238,7 @@ struct cfq_data {
> struct rb_root prio_trees[CFQ_PRIO_LISTS];
>
> unsigned int busy_queues;
> + unsigned int busy_sync_queues;
>
> int rq_in_driver;
> int rq_in_flight[2];
> @@ -1372,6 +1373,8 @@ static void cfq_add_cfqq_rr(struct cfq_d
> BUG_ON(cfq_cfqq_on_rr(cfqq));
> cfq_mark_cfqq_on_rr(cfqq);
> cfqd->busy_queues++;
> + if (cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq))
> + cfqd->busy_sync_queues++;
>
> cfq_resort_rr_list(cfqd, cfqq);
> }
> @@ -1398,6 +1401,8 @@ static void cfq_del_cfqq_rr(struct cfq_d
> cfq_group_service_tree_del(cfqd, cfqq->cfqg);
> BUG_ON(!cfqd->busy_queues);
> cfqd->busy_queues--;
> + if (cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq))
> + cfqd->busy_sync_queues--;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -2405,6 +2410,7 @@ static bool cfq_may_dispatch(struct cfq_
> * Does this cfqq already have too much IO in flight?
> */
> if (cfqq->dispatched >= max_dispatch) {
> + bool promote_sync = false;
> /*
> * idle queue must always only have a single IO in flight
> */
> @@ -2412,15 +2418,31 @@ static bool cfq_may_dispatch(struct cfq_
> return false;
>
> /*
> + * If there is only one sync queue, and its think time is
> + * small, we can ignore async queue here and give the sync
> + * queue no dispatch limit. The reason is a sync queue can
> + * preempt async queue, limiting the sync queue doesn't make
> + * sense. This is useful for aiostress test.
> + */
> + if (cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq) && cfqd->busy_sync_queues == 1) {
> + struct cfq_io_context *cic = RQ_CIC(cfqq->next_rq);
> +
> + if (sample_valid(cic->ttime_samples) &&
> + cic->ttime_mean < cfqd->cfq_slice_idle)
> + promote_sync = true;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> * We have other queues, don't allow more IO from this one
> */
> - if (cfqd->busy_queues > 1 && cfq_slice_used_soon(cfqd, cfqq))
> + if (cfqd->busy_queues > 1 && cfq_slice_used_soon(cfqd, cfqq) &&
> + !promote_sync)
> return false;
>
> /*
> * Sole queue user, no limit
> */
> - if (cfqd->busy_queues == 1)
> + if (cfqd->busy_queues == 1 || promote_sync)
> max_dispatch = -1;
> else
> /*
>
>
>
--
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