Re: [PATCH] cfq-iosched: allow groups preemption for sync-noidleworkloads

From: Vivek Goyal
Date: Thu Jun 23 2011 - 13:26:43 EST

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 08:21:59PM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> commit v2.6.32-102-g8682e1f "blkio: Provide some isolation between groups" break
> fast switching between task and journal-thread for very common write-fsync workload.
> cfq wait idle slice at each cfqq switch, if this task is from non-root blkio cgroup.
> This patch move idling sync-noidle preempting check little bit upwards and update
> new service_tree->count check for case with two different groups.
> I do not quite understand what means these check for new_cfqq, but now it even works.
> Without patch I got 49 iops and with this patch 798, for this trivial fio script:
> [write-fsync]
> cgroup=test
> cgroup_weight=1000
> rw=write
> fsync=1
> size=100m
> runtime=10s
> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> block/cfq-iosched.c | 14 +++++++-------
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/block/cfq-iosched.c b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> index 3c7b537..c71533e 100644
> --- a/block/cfq-iosched.c
> +++ b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> @@ -3318,19 +3318,19 @@ cfq_should_preempt(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *new_cfqq,
> if (rq_is_sync(rq) && !cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq))
> return true;
> - if (new_cfqq->cfqg != cfqq->cfqg)
> - return false;
> -
> - if (cfq_slice_used(cfqq))
> - return true;
> -
> /* Allow preemption only if we are idling on sync-noidle tree */
> if (cfqd->serving_type == SYNC_NOIDLE_WORKLOAD &&
> cfqq_type(new_cfqq) == SYNC_NOIDLE_WORKLOAD &&
> - new_cfqq->service_tree->count == 2 &&
> + new_cfqq->service_tree->count == 1+(new_cfqq->cfqg == cfqq->cfqg) &&

I think this will completely break the isolation between groups. So now
your a cgroup might be serving a cfqq from SYNC_NOIDLE_WORKLOAD and a
SYNC_NOIDLE_WORKLOAD queue gets queued in a separate group, it will
immediately preempt queue in other group.

This problem is arising due to dependency between fsync and journalling
threads which are in different cgroups.

We had similar problem in root group also when one thread will show up
on sync-idle tree and other thread will show up on sync-noidle tree
and idling will kill throughput. I can't seem to remember how did we
fix that. I know Jeff moyer was working on some slice yield patches
but that never made in. This patch also will not help if we run into
this situation when a dependent thread is on a sync-idle tree.

I guess we need a way to know the dependency between IO operations
and if some dependent IO operation is waiting in other group and
existing group has no IO to do, we can afford not to idle.

Jeff, would you remember how did we fix the fsync issue?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at