mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Cc: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/4] cfq: implement merging and breaking up of  cfq_queues
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:20:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4e5e476b0910260620l3eb6c0a4u422cad1e5386bd71@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091026114011.GD10727@kernel.dk>

Hi Jens
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24 2009, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
>> You identified the problem in the idling logic, that reduces the
>> throughput in this particular scenario, in which various threads or
>> processes issue (in random order) the I/O requests with different I/O
>> contexts on behalf of a single entity.
>> In this case, any idling between those threads is detrimental.
>> Ideally, such cases should be already spotted, since think time should
>> be high for such processes, so I wonder if this indicates a problem in
>> the current think time logic.
>
> That isn't necessarily true, it may just as well be that there's very
> little think time (don't see the connection here). A test case to
> demonstrate this would be a number of processes/threads splitting a
> sequential read of a file between them.

Jeff said that the huge performance drop was not observable with noop
or any other work conserving scheduler.
Since noop doesn't enforce any I/O ordering, but just ensures that any
I/O passes through ASAP,
this means that the biggest problem is due to idling, while the
increased seekiness has just a small impact.

So your test case doesn't actually match the observations: each thread
will always have new requests to submit (so idling doesn't penalize
too much here), while the seekiness introduced will be the most
important factor.

I think the real test case is something like (single dd through nfs via udp):
* there is a single thread, that submits a small number of requests
(e.g. 2) to a work queue, and wait for their completion before
submitting new requests
* there is a thread pool that executes those requests (1 thread runs 1
request), and signals back completion. Threads in the pool are
selected randomly.

In this case, the average think time should be > the average access
time, as soon as we have that the number of threads exceeds
2*#parallel_requests.

Corrado

>
> --
> Jens Axboe
>
>

  reply	other threads:[~2009-10-26 13:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-10-23 21:14 Jeff Moyer
2009-10-23 21:14 ` [PATCH 1/4] cfq: calculate the seek_mean per cfq_queue not per cfq_io_context Jeff Moyer
2009-10-23 21:14 ` [PATCH 2/4] cfq: merge cooperating cfq_queues Jeff Moyer
2009-10-23 21:14 ` [PATCH 3/4] cfq: change the meaning of the cfqq_coop flag Jeff Moyer
2009-10-23 21:14 ` [PATCH 4/4] cfq: break apart merged cfqqs if they stop cooperating Jeff Moyer
2009-10-24 20:08 ` [PATCH/RFC 0/4] cfq: implement merging and breaking up of cfq_queues Corrado Zoccolo
2009-10-26 11:40   ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-26 13:20     ` Corrado Zoccolo [this message]
2009-10-26 13:28       ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-26 13:31   ` Jeff Moyer
2009-10-26 13:34     ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-26 15:01       ` Jeff Moyer

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=4e5e476b0910260620l3eb6c0a4u422cad1e5386bd71@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=czoccolo@gmail.com \
    --cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
    --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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®