mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@hp.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Block IO Controller V2 - some results
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:32:28 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4e5e476b0911201032j5319b012v5fd0a64ebfe11089@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091120150421.GC5872@redhat.com>

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 03:28:27PM +0100, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
>> Hi Vivek,
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Corrado,
>> >
>> > I liked the idea of putting all the sync-noidle queues together in root
>> > group to achieve better throughput and implemeted a small patch.
>> >
>> > It works fine for random readers. But when I do multiple direct random writers
>> > in one group vs a random reader in other group, I am getting strange
>> > behavior. Random reader moves to root group as sync-noidle workload. But
>> > random writers are largely sync queues in remain in other group. But many
>> > a times also jump into root group and preempt random reader.
>>
>> can you try the attached patches?
>> They fix the problems you identified about no-idle preemption, and
>> deep seeky queues.
>> With those, you should not see this jumping any more.
>> I'll send them to Jens as soon has he comes back from vacation.
>>
>> Corrado
>>
>> > Anyway, with 4 random writers and 1 random reader running for 30 seconds
>> > in root group I get following.
>> >
>> > rw: 59,963KB/s
>> > rr: 66KB/s
>> >
>> > But if these are put in seprate groups test1 and test2 then
>> >
>> > rw: 30,587KB/s
>> > rr: 23KB/s
>> >
>
> I quickly tried your new patches to try to keep idling enabled on deep
> seeky sync queues so that it does not jump around too much and consume
> share both in sync workload and sync-noidle workload.
>
> Here are new results.
>
> Without cgroup.
>
> rw: 58,571KB/s
> rr: 83KB/s
>
> With cgroup:
>
> rw: 32,525KB/s
> rr: 25KB/s
>
> So without cgroup it looks like that random reader gained a bit and that's
> a good thing.

Great.
> With cgroup, problem still persists. I am wondering why both are loosing.
> Looks like I am idling somewhere otherwise at least one person should have
> gained.
With just 2 groups (one is the root), you can't be idling 50% of the
time. How is the disk utilization during the test?

Note that you can lose even if you're not idling enough.
How does this workload fare with noop or deadline?

Thanks
Corrado

>
> Thanks
> Vivek
>



-- 
__________________________________________________________________________

dott. Corrado Zoccolo                          mailto:czoccolo@gmail.com
PhD - Department of Computer Science - University of Pisa, Italy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The self-confidence of a warrior is not the self-confidence of the average
man. The average man seeks certainty in the eyes of the onlooker and calls
that self-confidence. The warrior seeks impeccability in his own eyes and
calls that humbleness.
                               Tales of Power - C. Castaneda

  reply	other threads:[~2009-11-20 18:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-11-16 20:51 Alan D. Brunelle
2009-11-16 21:14 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-11-16 21:32   ` Alan D. Brunelle
2009-11-16 21:37     ` Vivek Goyal
2009-11-16 22:18 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-11-17 12:38   ` Alan D. Brunelle
2009-11-17 14:14     ` Vivek Goyal
2009-11-17 16:17       ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-11-17 16:40         ` Vivek Goyal
2009-11-17 17:30           ` Alan D. Brunelle
2009-11-17 17:44             ` Vivek Goyal
2009-11-17 20:59           ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-11-17 22:38             ` Vivek Goyal
2009-11-17 23:11               ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-11-19  0:04                 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-11-19 20:12                   ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-11-17 16:45         ` Alan D. Brunelle
2009-11-18 15:32     ` Vivek Goyal
2009-11-18 16:20       ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-11-18 22:56         ` Vivek Goyal
2009-11-18 23:35           ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-11-20 14:18             ` Vivek Goyal
2009-11-20 14:28               ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-11-20 15:04                 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-11-20 18:32                   ` Corrado Zoccolo [this message]
2009-11-20 18:42                     ` Vivek Goyal
2009-11-20 19:50                       ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-11-21 17:57                         ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-11-23 15:19                           ` Vivek Goyal
2009-11-23 16:22                             ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-11-17 20:38 ` Alan D. Brunelle
2009-11-19 16:57   ` Vivek Goyal

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=4e5e476b0911201032j5319b012v5fd0a64ebfe11089@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=czoccolo@gmail.com \
    --cc=Alan.Brunelle@hp.com \
    --cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --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