linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cfq-iosched: allow groups preemption for sync-noidle workloads

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:34:59 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfq-iosched: allow groups preemption for sync-noidle
 workloads

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 08:21:59PM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> commit v2.6.32-102-g8682e1f "blkio: Provide some isolation between groups" break
> fast switching between task and journal-thread for very common write-fsync workload.
> cfq wait idle slice at each cfqq switch, if this task is from non-root blkio cgroup.
> 
> This patch move idling sync-noidle preempting check little bit upwards and update
> new service_tree->count check for case with two different groups.
> I do not quite understand what means these check for new_cfqq, but now it even works.
> 
> Without patch I got 49 iops and with this patch 798, for this trivial fio script:
> 
> [write-fsync]
> cgroup=test
> cgroup_weight=1000
> rw=write
> fsync=1
> size=100m
> runtime=10s

What kind of storage and filesystem you are using? I tried this on a SATA
disk and I really don't get good throughput. With deadline scheduler I
get aggrb=103KB/s.

I think with fsync we are generating so many FLUSH requests that it 
really slows down fsync.

Even if I use CFQ with and without cgroups, I get following.

CFQ, without cgroup
------------------
aggrb=100KB/s

CFQ with cgroup
--------------
aggrb=94KB/s

So with FLUSH requests, not much difference in throughput for this 
workload.

I guess you must be running with barriers off or something like that.

Thanks
Vivek


> 
> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>
> ---
>  block/cfq-iosched.c |   14 +++++++-------
>  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/cfq-iosched.c b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> index 3c7b537..c71533e 100644
> --- a/block/cfq-iosched.c
> +++ b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> @@ -3318,19 +3318,19 @@ cfq_should_preempt(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *new_cfqq,
>  	if (rq_is_sync(rq) && !cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq))
>  		return true;
>  
> -	if (new_cfqq->cfqg != cfqq->cfqg)
> -		return false;
> -
> -	if (cfq_slice_used(cfqq))
> -		return true;
> -
>  	/* Allow preemption only if we are idling on sync-noidle tree */
>  	if (cfqd->serving_type == SYNC_NOIDLE_WORKLOAD &&
>  	    cfqq_type(new_cfqq) == SYNC_NOIDLE_WORKLOAD &&
> -	    new_cfqq->service_tree->count == 2 &&
> +	    new_cfqq->service_tree->count == 1+(new_cfqq->cfqg == cfqq->cfqg) &&
>  	    RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&cfqq->sort_list))
>  		return true;
>  
> +	if (new_cfqq->cfqg != cfqq->cfqg)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	if (cfq_slice_used(cfqq))
> +		return true;
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * So both queues are sync. Let the new request get disk time if
>  	 * it's a metadata request and the current queue is doing regular IO.
--
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/