[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1326071375.22361.543.camel@sli10-conroe>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:09:35 +0800
From: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk, vgoyal@...hat.com,
jmoyer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3]block: An IOPS based ioscheduler
On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 09:16 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 01:12:29PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 14:50 +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 18:19 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 02:53:37PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > > > An IOPS based I/O scheduler
> > > > >
> > > > > Flash based storage has some different characteristics against rotate disk.
> > > > > 1. no I/O seek.
> > > > > 2. read and write I/O cost usually is much different.
> > > > > 3. Time which a request takes depends on request size.
> > > > > 4. High throughput and IOPS, low latency.
> > > > >
> > > > > CFQ iosched does well for rotate disk, for example fair dispatching, idle
> > > > > for sequential read. It also has optimization for flash based storage (for
> > > > > item 1 above), but overall it's not designed for flash based storage. It's
> > > > > a slice based algorithm. Since flash based storage request cost is very
> > > > > low, and drive has big queue_depth is quite popular now which makes
> > > > > dispatching cost even lower, CFQ's slice accounting (jiffy based)
> > > > > doesn't work well. CFQ doesn't consider above item 2 & 3.
> > > > >
> > > > > FIOPS (Fair IOPS) ioscheduler is trying to fix the gaps. It's IOPS based, so
> > > > > only targets for drive without I/O seek. It's quite similar like CFQ, but
> > > > > the dispatch decision is made according to IOPS instead of slice.
> > > > >
> > > > > The algorithm is simple. Drive has a service tree, and each task lives in
> > > > > the tree. The key into the tree is called vios (virtual I/O). Every request
> > > > > has vios, which is calculated according to its ioprio, request size and so
> > > > > on. Task's vios is the sum of vios of all requests it dispatches. FIOPS
> > > > > always selects task with minimum vios in the service tree and let the task
> > > > > dispatch request. The dispatched request's vios is then added to the task's
> > > > > vios and the task is repositioned in the sevice tree.
> > > > >
> > > > > The series are orgnized as:
> > > > > Patch 1: separate CFQ's io context management code. FIOPS will use it too.
> > > > > Patch 2: The core FIOPS.
> > > > > Patch 3: request read/write vios scale. This demontrates how the vios scale.
> > > > >
> > > > > To make the code simple for easy view, some scale code isn't included here,
> > > > > some not implementated yet.
> > > > >
> > > > > TODO:
> > > > > 1. ioprio support (have patch already)
> > > > > 2. request size vios scale
> > > > > 3. cgroup support
> > > > > 4. tracing support
> > > > > 5. automatically select default iosched according to QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT.
> > > > >
> > > > > Comments and suggestions are welcome!
> > > >
> > > > Benchmark results?
> > > I didn't have data yet. The patches are still in earlier stage, I want
> > > to focus on the basic idea first.
> > since you asked, I tested in a 4 socket machine with 12 X25M SSD jbod,
> > fs is ext4.
> >
> > workload percentage change with fiops against cfq
> > fio_sync_read_4k -2
> > fio_mediaplay_64k 0
> > fio_mediaplay_128k 0
> > fio_mediaplay_rr_64k 0
> > fio_sync_read_rr_4k 0
> > fio_sync_write_128k 0
> > fio_sync_write_64k -1
> > fio_sync_write_4k -2
> > fio_sync_write_64k_create 0
> > fio_sync_write_rr_64k_create 0
> > fio_sync_write_128k_create 0
> > fio_aio_randread_4k -4
> > fio_aio_randread_64k 0
> > fio_aio_randwrite_4k 1
> > fio_aio_randwrite_64k 0
> > fio_aio_randrw_4k -1
> > fio_aio_randrw_64k 0
> > fio_tpch 9
> > fio_tpcc 0
> > fio_mmap_randread_4k -1
> > fio_mmap_randread_64k 1
> > fio_mmap_randread_1k -8
> > fio_mmap_randwrite_4k 35
> > fio_mmap_randwrite_64k 22
> > fio_mmap_randwrite_1k 28
> > fio_mmap_randwrite_4k_halfbusy 24
> > fio_mmap_randrw_4k 23
> > fio_mmap_randrw_64k 4
> > fio_mmap_randrw_1k 22
> > fio_mmap_randrw_4k_halfbusy 35
> > fio_mmap_sync_read_4k 0
> > fio_mmap_sync_read_64k -1
> > fio_mmap_sync_read_128k -1
> > fio_mmap_sync_read_rr_64k 5
> > fio_mmap_sync_read_rr_4k 3
> >
> > The fio_mmap_randread_1k has regression against 3.2-rc7, but no
> > regression against 3.2-rc6 kernel, still checking why. The fiops has
> > improvement for read/write mixed workload. CFQ is known not good for
> > read/write mixed workload.
>
> Numbers like this are meaningless without knowing what the hardware
> capability is and how the numbers compare to that raw capability.
> They tell me only mmap based random write improves in
> performance, and only one specific type of random write improves,
> not all types.
>
> That raises more questions that it answers: why do AIO based random
> writes not go any faster? Is that because even with CFQ, AIO based
> random writes saturate the device? i.e. is AIO based IO that much
> faster than mmap based IO that there is no scope for improvement on
> your hardware?
>
> You need to present raw numbers and give us some idea of how close
> those numbers are to raw hardware capability for us to have any idea
> what improvements these numbers actually demonstrate.
Yes, your guess is right. The hardware has limitation. 12 SSD exceeds
the jbod capability, for both throughput and IOPS, that's why only
read/write mixed workload impacts. I'll use less SSD in later tests,
which will demonstrate the performance better. I'll report both raw
numbers and fiops/cfq numbers later.
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