mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: "'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@osdl.org>, "Jens Axboe" <axboe@suse.de>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Cache queue_congestion_on/off_threshold
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 13:29:06 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200405062029.i46KT5F13603@unix-os.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040505233426.704926da.akpm@osdl.org>

>>>> Andrew Morton wrote on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 11:34 PM
> Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > Do you have any numbers at all for this? I'd say these calculations are
> >  severly into the noise area when submitting io.
>
> The difference will not be measurable, but I think the patch makes sense
> regardless of what the numbers say.

Even though it is in the noise range that can't be easily measured, they are
indeed in the positive territory.  If I stack 5 of these little things, we
actually measured positive gain on a large db workload.

There isn't anything absurd in 2.6 kernel, however, I hate to say that we
consistently see performance regression with latest 2.6 kernel compare to
best 2.4 based kernel under heavy db workload on 4-way SMP platform. (2.6
rocks on numa platform that 2.4 doesn't even have a chance to compete).

Some of the examples are:

(1) it's cheaper to find out whether a queue is empty or not by calling
    elv_queue_empty() instead of using heavier elv_next_request().
(2) it's better to check queue empty before calling into q->request_fn()


diff -Nurp linux-2.6.6-rc3/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c linux-2.6.6-rc3.ken/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c
--- linux-2.6.6-rc3/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c	2004-05-06 13:03:14.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.6-rc3.ken/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c	2004-05-06 13:04:04.000000000 -0700
@@ -1128,7 +1128,7 @@ static inline void __generic_unplug_devi
 	/*
 	 * was plugged, fire request_fn if queue has stuff to do
 	 */
-	if (elv_next_request(q))
+	if (!elv_queue_empty(q))
 		q->request_fn(q);
 }

@@ -1237,7 +1237,8 @@ void blk_run_queue(struct request_queue

 	spin_lock_irqsave(q->queue_lock, flags);
 	blk_remove_plug(q);
-	q->request_fn(q);
+	if (!elv_queue_empty(q))
+		q->request_fn(q);
 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(q->queue_lock, flags);
 }



(3) can we allocate request structure up front in __make_request?
    For I/O that cannot be merged, the elevator code executes twice
    in __make_request.


diff -Nurp linux-2.6.6-rc3/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c linux-2.6.6-rc3.ken/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c
--- linux-2.6.6-rc3/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c	2004-05-06 13:03:14.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.6-rc3.ken/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c	2004-05-06 13:11:39.000000000 -0700
@@ -2154,15 +2154,14 @@ static int __make_request(request_queue_

 	ra = bio->bi_rw & (1 << BIO_RW_AHEAD);

+	/* Grab a free request from the freelist */
+	freereq = get_request(q, rw, GFP_ATOMIC);
+
 again:
 	spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock);

-	if (elv_queue_empty(q)) {
+	if (elv_queue_empty(q))
 		blk_plug_device(q);
-		goto get_rq;
-	}
-	if (barrier)
-		goto get_rq;

 	el_ret = elv_merge(q, &req, bio);
 	switch (el_ret) {


Some more, I will post in another thread.

- Ken



  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-05-06 20:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-05-05 22:12 Chen, Kenneth W
2004-05-06  6:20 ` Jens Axboe
2004-05-06  6:34   ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-06  6:43     ` Jens Axboe
2004-05-06 20:30       ` Chen, Kenneth W
2004-05-07  3:02         ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-07  9:35           ` Jens Axboe
2004-05-06 20:29     ` Chen, Kenneth W [this message]
2004-05-07  9:39       ` Jens Axboe
2004-05-07 22:00         ` Chen, Kenneth W
2004-05-10 14:30           ` Jens Axboe
2004-05-10 14:43             ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-10 14:44               ` Jens Axboe
2004-05-11  3:22                 ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-12  5:32             ` Chen, Kenneth W
2004-05-12  7:05               ` Jens Axboe
2004-05-12 13:48                 ` Jens Axboe
2004-05-12 14:22               ` Jens Axboe

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200405062029.i46KT5F13603@unix-os.sc.intel.com \
    --to=kenneth.w.chen@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=axboe@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome