Date:	Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:34:50 +0800
From:	Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc:	Tao Ma <tm@....ma>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: CFQ: async queue blocks the whole system

2011/6/10 Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>:
> 2011/6/9 Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>:
>> On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 10:47:43PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
>>> Hi Vivek,
>>>       Thanks for the quick response.
>>> On 06/09/2011 10:14 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:49:37PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
>>> >> Hi Jens and Vivek,
>>> >>    We are current running some heavy ext4 metadata test,
>>> >> and we found a very severe problem for CFQ. Please correct me if
>>> >> my statement below is wrong.
>>> >>
>>> >> CFQ only has an async queue for every priority of every class and
>>> >> these queues have a very low serving priority, so if the system
>>> >> has a large number of sync reads, these queues will be delayed a
>>> >> lot of time. As a result, the flushers will be blocked, then the
>>> >> journal and finally our applications[1].
>>> >>
>>> >> I have tried to let jbd/2 to use WRITE_SYNC so that they can checkpoint
>>> >> in time and the patches are sent. But today we found another similar
>>> >> block in kswapd which make me think that maybe CFQ should be changed
>>> >> somehow so that all these callers can benefit from it.
>>> >>
>>> >> So is there any way to let the async queue work timely or at least
>>> >> is there any deadline for async queue to finish an request in time
>>> >> even in case there are many reads?
>>> >>
>>> >> btw, We have tested deadline scheduler and it seems to work in our test.
>>> >>
>>> >> [1] the message we get from one system:
>>> >> INFO: task flush-8:0:2950 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>>> >> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
>>> >> flush-8:0       D ffff88062bfde738     0  2950      2 0x00000000
>>> >>  ffff88062b137820 0000000000000046 ffff88062b137750 ffffffff812b7bc3
>>> >>  ffff88032cddc000 ffff88062bfde380 ffff88032d3d8840 0000000c2be37400
>>> >>  000000002be37601 0000000000000006 ffff88062b137760 ffffffff811c242e
>>> >> Call Trace:
>>> >>  [<ffffffff812b7bc3>] ? scsi_request_fn+0x345/0x3df
>>> >>  [<ffffffff811c242e>] ? __blk_run_queue+0x1a/0x1c
>>> >>  [<ffffffff811c57cc>] ? queue_unplugged+0x77/0x8e
>>> >>  [<ffffffff813dbe67>] io_schedule+0x47/0x61
>>> >>  [<ffffffff811c512c>] get_request_wait+0xe0/0x152
>>> >
>>> > Ok, so flush slept on trying to get a "request" allocated on request
>>> > queue. That means all the ASYNC request descriptors are already consumed
>>> > and we are not making progress with ASYNc requests.
>>> >
>>> > A relatively recent patch allowed sync queues to always preempt async queues
>>> > and schedule sync workload instead of async. This had the potential to
>>> > starve async queues and looks like that's what we are running into.
>>> >
>>> > commit f8ae6e3eb8251be32c6e913393d9f8d9e0609489
>>> > Author: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
>>> > Date:   Fri Jan 14 08:41:02 2011 +0100
>>> >
>>> >     block cfq: make queue preempt work for queues from different workload
>>> >
>>> > Do you have few seconds of blktrace. I just wanted to verify that this
>>> > is what we are running into.
>>> We are using the latest kernel, so the patch is already there. :(
>>>
>>> You are right that all the requests have been allocated and the flusher
>>> is waiting for requests to be available. But the root cause is that in
>>> heavy sync read, the async queue in cfq is delayed too much. I have
>>> added some traces in the cfq codes path and after several investigation,
>>> I found several interesting things and tried to improve it. But I am not
>>> sure whether it is bug or it is designed intentionally.
>>>
>>> 1. In cfq_dispatch_requests we select a sync queue to serve, but if the
>>> queue has too much requests in flight, the cfq_slice_used_soon may be
>>> true and the cfqq isn't allowed to send and will waste some timeslice.
>>> Then why choose this cfqq? Why not choose a qualified one?
>>
>> CFQ in general tries not to drive too deep a queue depth in an effort
>> to improve latencies. CFQ is generally recommened for slow SATA drives
>> and dispatching too many requests from a single queue can only serve to
>> increase the latency.
>>
>>>
>>> 2. async queue isn't allowed to be sent if there is some sync request in
>>> fly, but as now most of the devices has a greater depth, should we
>>> improve it somehow? I guess queue_depth should be a valid number maybe?
>>
>> We seem to be running this batching thing in cfq_may_dispatch() where
>> we drain sync requests before async is dispatched and vice-a-versa.
>> I am not sure how does this batching thing helps. I think Jens should
>> be a better person to comment on that.
>>
>> I ran a fio job with few readers and few writers. I do see that few times
>> we have schedule ASYNC workload/queue but did not dispatch a request
>> from that. And reason being that there are sync requests in flight. And
>> by the time sync requests finish, async queue gets preempted.
>>
>> So async queue does it scheduled but never gets a chance to dispatch
>> a request because there was sync IO in flight.
>>
>> If there is no major advantage of draining sync requests before async
>> is dispatched, I think this should be an easy fix.
> I thought this is to avoid sync latency if we switch from an async
> queue to sync queue later.
>
>>> 3. Even there is no sync i/o, the async queue isn't allowed to send too
>>> much requests because of the check in cfq_may_dispatch "Async queues
>>> must wait a bit before being allowed dispatch", so in my test the async
>>> queue has several chances to be selected, but it is only allowed
>>> todispatch one request at a time. It is really amazing.
>>
>> Again heavily loaded to improve sync latencies. Say you have queue
>> depth of 128 and you fill that all with async requests because right
>> now there is no sync request around. Then a sync request comes in.
>> We don't have a way to give it a priority and it might happen that
>> it gets executed after 128 async requests have finished (driver and
>> drive dependent though).
>>
>> So in an attempt to improve sync latencies we don't drive too
>> high queue depths.
>>
>> Its latency vs throughput tradeoff.
> The current cfq do be able to stave async queue, because we want to give small
> latency to sync queue.
> I agree we should do something to improve async starvation, but the
> problem is how
> long async queue slice should be. A sd card I tested has very high
> latency for write. A 4k write can take > 300ms. Just dispatching a
> singe write can dramatically impact
> read throughput. Even in modern SSD, read is several times faster than write.
My previous experiment is if a queue is preempted, it will not be
preempted at the second time. This can improve something, but can't
resolve the problem completely.
I thought we can't completely solve this issue if we give high
priority to sync queue,
async queue is unavoidable to be able starved.

Thanks,
Shaohua
--
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