mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Cc: Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfq-iosched: reduce write depth only if sync was delayed
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:15:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4e5e476b0912110915u209b8923m359d9147cc229fea@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <x49ocm8nhn6.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>

Hi Jeff,
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote:
> Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> The numbers look good. Now, there is no penalty in having low_latency
>> set for sequential writes, and just a small penalty for random ones.
>> The fact that random reads are faster with low_latency set is interesting.
>> Is the test is running with your patched tiobench (so that the number
>> of random operations is comparable with sequential ones)?
>
> No, I forgot all about that.  The number of random operations defaults
> to 4000, which is pretty low.  I'll re-run the tests with a number
> comparable to the sequential runs.  Sorry about that.
>
N.P.
if you have time, can you also re-run the test changing:
iosched/fifo_expire_async to 8 ?
I hope that reducing the expire_async, will make cfq quicker at switching
between the different threads, allowing more parallelism for seq
writers on your hw.
If this is the case, I think I can try to estimate the
fifo_expire_async in the autotuning patch.

> Cheers,
> Jeff
>

Thanks
Corrado

  reply	other threads:[~2009-12-11 17:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-12-04 12:35 Corrado Zoccolo
2009-12-05 11:13 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-12-06 10:45   ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-12-06 10:49     ` Jens Axboe
2009-12-07 14:13       ` Jeff Moyer
2009-12-07 14:41         ` Jens Axboe
2009-12-07 16:45           ` Jeff Moyer
2009-12-07 17:04             ` Vivek Goyal
2009-12-07 17:27             ` Vivek Goyal
2009-12-07 18:03               ` Vivek Goyal
2009-12-08  0:07     ` Jeff Moyer
2009-12-08 20:43       ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-12-09 18:09         ` Jeff Moyer
2009-12-11 17:15           ` Corrado Zoccolo [this message]
2009-12-11 17:50             ` Jeff Moyer
2009-12-18 15:32             ` Jeff Moyer
2009-12-18 21:03               ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-12-08 18:00 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-12-08 20:46   ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-12-09 18:16     ` Jeff Moyer
2009-12-09 19:05       ` Jens Axboe
2009-12-09 19:45 Corrado Zoccolo
2009-12-09 19:51 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-12-09 19:54 ` 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=4e5e476b0912110915u209b8923m359d9147cc229fea@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=czoccolo@gmail.com \
    --cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=jmoyer@redhat.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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®