mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"vgoyal@redhat.com" <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
	"jmoyer@redhat.com" <jmoyer@redhat.com>,
	"guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com" <guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	"Shi, Alex" <alex.shi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC]cfq-iosched: fix a kbuild regression
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:57:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100319075719.GM5768@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100318010459.GA26716@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com>

On Thu, Mar 18 2010, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 02:24:10AM +0800, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 16 2010, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > >> Alex Shi reported a kbuild regression which is about 10% performance lost.
> > >> He bisected to this commit: 3dde36ddea3e07dd025c4c1ba47edec91606fec0.
> > >> The reason is cfqq_close() can't find close cooperator. If we store the seek
> > >> distance to the value before the commit like below, the regression fully goes
> > >> away. If this is too invasive, just changing the cfq_rq_close() for the
> > >> !for_preempt is ok too.
> > >
> > > Corrado, any objections to widening the seek threshold?
> > 
> > The previous seek threshold value was meant to be compared with the
> > average seek distance, so it was large to account for variations.
> > Since we handle the variations differently, we should have a smaller
> > value now (the 100 * 8 was the result of a benchmark run on several
> > disks).
> Our test doesn't find any issue with the seek threshold so far, so it proberly
> is ok.
> 
> > I agreee, though, that for merging queues, it is now too small, so we
> > should have two thresholds, the current one used to determine if a
> > request causes a seek, and an other to be used inside cfq_close (with
> > the older value, regardless of for_preempt).
> That makes sense. Updated patch.
> 
> 
> Alex Shi reported a kbuild regression which is about 10% performance lost.
> He bisected to this commit: 3dde36ddea3e07dd025c4c1ba47edec91606fec0.
> The reason is cfqq_close() can't find close cooperator. Restoring 
> cfq_rq_close()'s threshold to original value makes the regression go away.
> 
> Since for_preempt parameter isn't used anymore, this patch deletes it.

Thanks, I have applied it.

-- 
Jens Axboe


      parent reply	other threads:[~2010-03-19  7:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-03-16  2:56 Shaohua Li
2010-03-17 13:30 ` Jens Axboe
2010-03-17 18:24   ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-03-18  1:05     ` Shaohua Li
2010-03-18 16:55       ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-03-19  7:57       ` Jens Axboe [this message]

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=20100319075719.GM5768@kernel.dk \
    --to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=alex.shi@intel.com \
    --cc=czoccolo@gmail.com \
    --cc=guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
    --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    /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