Date:	Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:55:49 -0500
From:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Read starvation by sync writes

Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> writes:

> On 2012-12-12 20:41, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> writes:
>> 
>>>> I agree. This isn't about scheduling, we haven't even reached that part
>>>> yet. Back when we split the queues into read vs write, this problem
>>>> obviously wasn't there. Now we have sync writes and reads, both eating
>>>> from the same pool. The io scheduler can impact this a bit by forcing
>>>> reads to must allocate (Jan, which io scheduler are you using?). CFQ
>>>> does this when it's expecting a request from this process queue.
>>>>
>>>> Back in the day, we used to have one list. To avoid a similar problem,
>>>> we reserved the top of the list for reads. With the batching, it's a bit
>>>> more complicated. If we make the request allocation (just that, not the
>>>> scheduling) be read vs write instead of sync vs async, then we have the
>>>> same issue for sync vs buffered writes.
>>>>
>>>> How about something like the below? Due to the nature of sync reads, we
>>>> should allow a much longer timeout. The batch is really tailored towards
>>>> writes at the moment. Also shrink the batch count, 32 is pretty large...
>>>
>>> Does batching even make sense for dependent reads?  I don't think it
>>> does.
>> 
>> Having just read the batching code in detail, I'd like to ammend this
>> misguided comment.  Batching logic kicks in when you happen to be lucky
>> enough to use up the last request.  As such, I'd be surprised if the
>> patch you posted helped.  Jens, don't you think the writer is way more
>> likely to become the batcher?  I do agree with shrinking the batch count
>> to 16, whether or not the rest of the patch goes in.
>> 
>>>  Assuming you disagree, then you'll have to justify that fixed
>>> time value of 2 seconds.  The amount of time between dependent reads
>>> will vary depending on other I/O sent to the device, the properties of
>>> the device, the I/O scheduler, and so on.  If you do stick 2 seconds in
>>> there, please comment it.  Maybe it's time we started keeping track of
>>> worst case Q->C time?  That could be used to tell worst case latency,
>>> and adjust magic timeouts like this one.
>>>
>>> I'm still thinking about how we might solve this in a cleaner way.
>> 
>> The way things stand today, you can do a complete end run around the I/O
>> scheduler by queueing up enough I/O.  To address that, I think we need
>> to move to a request list per io_context as Jan had suggested.  That
>> way, we can keep the logic about who gets to submit I/O when in one
>> place.
>> 
>> Jens, what do you think?
>
> I think that is pretty extreme. We have way too much accounting around
> this already, and I'd rather just limit the batching than make
> per-ioc request lists too.

I'm not sure I understand your comment about accounting.  I don't think
it would add overhead to move to per-ioc request lists.  Note that, if
we did move to per-ioc request lists, we could yank out the blk cgroup
implementation of same.

> I agree the batch addition isn't super useful for the reads. It really
> is mostly a writer thing, and the timing reflects that.
>
> The problem is really that the WRITE_SYNC is (for Jan's case) behaving
> like buffered writes, so it eats up a queue of requests very easily. On
> the allocation side, the assumption is that WRITE_SYNC behaves like
> dependent reads. Similar to a dd with oflag=direct, not like a flood of
> requests. For dependent sync writes, our current behaviour is fine, we
> treat them like reads. For commits of WRITE_SYNC, they should be treated
> like async WRITE instead.

What are you suggesting?  It sounds as though you might be suggesting
that WRITE_SYNCs are allocated from the async request list, but treated
as sync requests in the I/O scheduler.  Oh, but only for this case of
streaming write syncs.  How did you want to detect that?  In the
caller?  Tracking information in the ioc?

Clear as mud.  ;-)

-Jeff
--
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