From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, nauman@google.com,
dpshah@google.com, guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com,
czoccolo@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cfq-iosched: Improve time slice charging logic
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:47:20 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <x49mxtntikn.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1279560008-2905-2-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> (Vivek Goyal's message of "Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:20:06 -0400")
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> writes:
> - Currently in CFQ there are many situations where don't know how
> much time slice has been consumed by a queue. For example, all
> the random reader/writer queues where we don't idle on
> individual queues and we expire the queue either immediately
> after the request dispatch.
>
> - In this case time consumed by a queue is just a memory copy
> operation. Actually time measurement is possible only if we
> idle on a queue and allow dispatch from a queue for significant
> amount of time.
>
> - As of today, in such cases we calculate the time since the
> dispatch from the queue started and charge all that time.
> Generally this rounds to 1 jiffy but in some cases it can
> be more. For example, if we are driving high request queue
> depth and driver is too busy and does not ask for new
> requests for 8-10 jiffies. In such cases, the active queue
> gets charged very unfairly.
>
> - So fundamentally, whole notion of charging for time slice
> is valid only if we have been idling on the queue. Otherwise
> in an NCQ queue, there might be other requests on the queue
> and we can not do the time slice calculation.
>
> - This patch tweaks the slice charging logic a bit so that
> in the cases where we can't know the amount of time, we
> start charging in terms of number of requests dispatched
> (IOPS). This practically switching CFQ fairness model to
> fairness in terms of IOPS with slice_idle=0.
>
> - As of today this will primarily be useful only with
> group_idle patches so that we get fairness in terms of
> IOPS across groups. The idea is that on fast storage
> one can run CFQ with slice_idle=0 and still get IO
> controller working without losing too much of
> throughput.
I'm not fluent in the cgroup code, my apologies for that. However, just
trying to make sense of this is giving me a headache. Now, in some
cases you are using IOPS *in place of* jiffies. How are we to know
which is which and in what cases?
It sounds like this is addressing an important problem, but I'm having a
hard time picking out what that problem is. Is this problem noticable
for competing sync-noidle workloads (competing between groups, that is)?
If not, then what?
Thanks,
Jeff
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
> ---
> block/cfq-iosched.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/cfq-iosched.c b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> index 7982b83..f44064c 100644
> --- a/block/cfq-iosched.c
> +++ b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> @@ -896,16 +896,34 @@ static inline unsigned int cfq_cfqq_slice_usage(struct cfq_queue *cfqq)
> * if there are mutiple queues in the group, each can dispatch
> * a single request on seeky media and cause lots of seek time
> * and group will never know it.
> + *
> + * If drive is NCQ and we are driving deep queue depths, then
> + * it is not reasonable to charge the slice since dispatch
> + * started because this time will include time taken by all
> + * the other requests in the queue.
> + *
> + * Actually there is no reasonable way to know the disk time
> + * here and we need to come up with some approximation. If
> + * disk is non NCQ, we should be driving request queue depth
> + * 1, then charge for time since dispatch start and this will
> + * account for seek time properly on seeky media. If request
> + * queue depth is high, then charge for number of requests
> + * dispatched from the queue. This will sort of becoming
> + * charging in terms of IOPS.
> */
> - slice_used = max_t(unsigned, (jiffies - cfqq->dispatch_start),
> - 1);
> + if (cfqq->cfqd->hw_tag == 0)
> + slice_used = max_t(unsigned,
> + (jiffies - cfqq->dispatch_start), 1);
> + else
> + slice_used = cfqq->slice_dispatch;
> } else {
> slice_used = jiffies - cfqq->slice_start;
> if (slice_used > cfqq->allocated_slice)
> slice_used = cfqq->allocated_slice;
> }
>
> - cfq_log_cfqq(cfqq->cfqd, cfqq, "sl_used=%u", slice_used);
> + cfq_log_cfqq(cfqq->cfqd, cfqq, "sl_used=%u, sl_disp=%u", slice_used,
> + cfqq->slice_dispatch);
> return slice_used;
> }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-19 18:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-19 17:20 [RFC PATCH] cfq-iosched: Implement group idle V2 Vivek Goyal
2010-07-19 17:20 ` [PATCH 1/3] cfq-iosched: Improve time slice charging logic Vivek Goyal
2010-07-19 18:47 ` Jeff Moyer [this message]
2010-07-19 18:58 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-19 20:32 ` Divyesh Shah
2010-07-19 20:44 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-19 21:19 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-07-19 22:05 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-19 17:20 ` [PATCH 2/3] cfq-iosched: Implement a new tunable group_idle Vivek Goyal
2010-07-19 18:58 ` Jeff Moyer
2010-07-19 20:20 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-19 17:20 ` [PATCH 3/3] cfq-iosched: Print per slice sectors dispatched in blktrace Vivek Goyal
2010-07-19 18:59 ` Jeff Moyer
2010-07-19 22:16 ` Divyesh Shah
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-07-19 17:14 [RFC PATCH] cfq-iosched: Implement group idle V2 Vivek Goyal
2010-07-19 17:14 ` [PATCH 1/3] cfq-iosched: Improve time slice charging logic 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=x49mxtntikn.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com \
--to=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=czoccolo@gmail.com \
--cc=dpshah@google.com \
--cc=guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nauman@google.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®