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
next prev 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