From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
To: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cfq-iosched: fixing RQ_NOIDLE handling.
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:03:08 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <x49eiffusvn.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim1wmWOJTbzrQgqQnB_VHJF8gWfr41DbjP9r8AJ@mail.gmail.com> (Corrado Zoccolo's message of "Wed, 7 Jul 2010 17:22:54 +0200")
Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi Jens,
> patch 8e55063 "cfq-iosched: fix corner cases in idling logic", is
> suspected for some regressions on high end hardware.
> The two patches from this series:
> - [PATCH 1/2] cfq-iosched: fix tree-wide handling of rq_noidle
> - [PATCH 2/2] cfq-iosched: RQ_NOIDLE enabled for SYNC_WORKLOAD
> fix two issues that I have identified, related to how RQ_NOIDLE is
> used by the upper layers.
> First patch makes sure that a RQ_NOIDLE coming after a sequence of
> possibly idling requests from the same queue on the no-idle tree will
> clear the noidle_tree_requires_idle flag.
> Second patch enables RQ_NOIDLE for queues in the idling tree,
> restoring the behaviour pre-8e55063 patch.
Hi, Corrado,
I ran your kernel through my tests. Here are the results, up against
vanilla, deadline, and the blk_yield patch set:
just just
fs_mark fio mixed
-------------------------------+--------------
deadline 529.44 151.4 | 450.0 78.2
vanilla cfq 107.88 164.4 | 6.6 137.2
blk_yield cfq 530.82 158.7 | 113.2 78.6
corrado cfq 80.82 138.1 | 4.5 130.7
fs_mark results are in files/second, fio results are in MB/s. All
results are the average of 5 runs. In order to get results for the
mixed workload for both vanilla and Corrado's kernels, I had to extend
the runtime from 30s to 300s.
So, the changes proposed in this thread actually make performance worse
across the board.
I re-ran my tests against a RHEL 5 kernel (which is based on 2.6.18),
and it shows that fs_mark performance is much better than stock CFQ in
2.6.35-rc3, and the mixed workload results are much the same as they are
now (which is to say, the fs_mark process is completely starved by the
sequential reader). So, that problem has existed for a long time.
I'm still in the process of collecting data from production servers and
will report back with my findings there.
Cheers,
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-07 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-07 15:22 Corrado Zoccolo
2010-07-07 15:56 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-07-07 17:03 ` Jeff Moyer [this message]
2010-07-07 17:39 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-07-07 20:06 ` Jeff Moyer
2010-07-08 14:38 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-07-09 10:33 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-07-09 13:23 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-09 14:07 ` Jeff Moyer
2010-07-09 19:45 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-07-09 20:48 ` Jeff Moyer
2010-07-13 19:38 ` Jeff Moyer
2010-07-13 19:56 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-13 20:30 ` Jeff Moyer
2010-07-13 20:42 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-19 16:08 ` Jeff Moyer
2010-07-19 20:31 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-20 14:02 ` Jeff Moyer
2010-07-20 14:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-20 14:26 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-20 19:10 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-07-20 19:32 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-13 21:00 ` Jeff Moyer
2010-07-07 17:50 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-08 14:35 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-08 14:38 ` Jeff Moyer
2010-07-08 14:45 ` Corrado Zoccolo
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=x49eiffusvn.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com \
--to=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=czoccolo@gmail.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