Re: [PATCH 3/3]Subject: CFQ: add think time check for group

[Shaohua Li]

On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 23:06 +0800, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 09:58:40AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> [..]
> > > > [global]
> > > > runtime=30
> > > > direct=1
> > > > 
> > > > [test1]
> > > > cgroup=test1
> > > > cgroup_weight=1000
> > > > rw=randread
> > > > ioengine=libaio
> > > > size=500m
> > > > runtime=30
> > > > directory=/mnt
> > > > filename=file1
> > > > thinktime=9000
> > > > 
> > > > [test2]
> > > > cgroup=test2
> > > > cgroup_weight=1000
> > > > rw=randread
> > > > ioengine=libaio
> > > > size=500m
> > > > runtime=30
> > > > directory=/mnt
> > > > filename=file2
> > > > 
> > > > 	patched		base
> > > > test1	64k		39k
> > > > test2	540k		540k
> > > > total	604k		578k
> > > > 
> > > > group1 gets much better throughput because it waits less time.
> 
> I don't understand it. Thinktime of group test1 is more than 8ms. So now
> we should not be idling on test1. Hence test1 should lose some share and
> test2 should gain disk share and overall throughput should go up.
> 
> I am wondering why throughput of test2 did not go up?
hmm, actually the throughput of test2 is better. Maybe I wrote it down wrong.
test2 throughput is about 548k/s. Sorry.

> Also can you run some tests to make sure that disk shares of regular
> workloads (thinktime less than 8ms) are not impacted.
I tried think time 2ms or no think time. there is no difference. the
result is quite stable.

Thanks,
Shaohua

--
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/