[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: cfq-iosched: tiobench regression
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 06:16:27PM +0800, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> Hi Shaohua,
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Shaohua Li <> wrote:
> > df5fe3e8e13883f58dc97489076bbcc150789a21
> > b3b6d0408c953524f979468562e7e210d8634150
> > The coop merge is too aggressive. For example, if two tasks are reading two
> > files where the two files have some adjecent blocks, cfq will immediately
> > merge them. cfq_rq_close() also has trouble, sometimes the seek_mean is very
> > big. I did a test to make cfq_rq_close() always checks the distence according
> > to CIC_SEEK_THR, but still saw a lot of wrong merge. (BTW, why we take a long
> > distence far away request as close. Taking them close doesn't improve any thoughtput
> > to me. Maybe we should always use CIC_SEEK_THR as close criteria).
> Yes, when deciding if two queues are going to be merged, we should use
> the constant CIC_SEEK_THR.
Ok, will prepare a seperate patch for this.

> > So sounds we need make split more aggressive. But the split is too lazay,
> > which requires to wait 1s. Time based check isn't reliable as queue might not
> > run at given time, so uses a small time isn't ok.
> 1s is too much, but I wouldn't abandon a time based approach. To fix
> the problem of queue not being run, you can consider a slice. If at
> the end of the slice, the queue is seeky, you split it.
Sounds good, will take this way.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-28 03:07    [W:0.098 / U:3.504 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site