Re: [PATCH 0/2] cfq-iosched: fixing RQ_NOIDLE handling.

[Corrado Zoccolo]

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@xxxxxxxxx> 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. ÂHere are the results, up against
>>>>> vanilla, deadline, and the blk_yield patch set:
>>>>>
>>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>> can you also add cfq with 8e55063 reverted to the testing mix?
>>>
>>> Sure, the results now look like this:
>>>
>>>         just  Âjust
>>>        Âfs_mark Âfio    Âmixed
>>> -------------------------------+--------------
>>> deadline    Â529.44  151.4 | 450.0  Â78.2
>>> vanilla cfq   107.88  164.4 |  6.6  137.2
>>> blk_yield cfq  530.82  158.7 | 113.2  Â78.6
>>> corrado cfq   110.16  220.6 |  7.0  159.8
>>> 8e55063 revert Â559.66 Â 198.9 | Â16.1 Â 153.3
>>>
>>> I had accidentally run your patch set (corrado cfq) on ext3, so the
>>> numbers were a bit off (everything else was run against ext4). ÂThe
>>> corrected numbers above reflect the performance on ext4, which is much
>>> better for the sequential reader, but still not great for the fs_mark
>>> run. ÂReverting 8e55063 definitely gets us into better shape. ÂHowever,
>>> if we care about the mixed workload, then it won't be enough.
>>
>> Wondering why deadline performs so well in the fs_mark workload. Is it
>> because it doesn't distinguish between sync and async writes?
>
> It performs well because it doesn't do any idling.
>
>> Maybe we can achieve something similar by putting all sync writes
>> (that are marked as REQ_NOIDLE) in the noidle tree? This, coupled with
>> making jbd(2) perform sync writes, should make the yield automatic,
>> since they all live in the same tree for which we don't idle between
>> queues, and should be able to provide fairness compared to a
>> sequential reader (that lives in the other tree).
>>
>> Can you test the attached patch, where I also added your changes to
>> make jbd(2) to perform sync writes?
>
> I'm not sure what kernel you generated that patch against. ÂI'm working
> with 2.6.35-rc3 or later, and your patch does not apply there.
It's Jens' block/for-2.6.36 tree.

>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>



-- 
__________________________________________________________________________

dott. Corrado Zoccolo             mailto:czoccolo@xxxxxxxxx
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.
              Â Tales of Power - C. Castaneda
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/