lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC]cfq-iosched: quantum check tweak
    On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 01:03:39AM +0800, Vivek Goyal wrote:
    > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:34:09AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
    > > On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 04:59:48AM +0800, Vivek Goyal wrote:
    > > > On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 09:35:33PM +0100, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
    > > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
    > > > > > On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 10:44:27PM +0100, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
    > > > > >> Hi Shahoua,
    > > > > >>
    > > > > >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 3:04 AM, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> wrote:
    > > > > >> > On Mon, 2009-12-28 at 17:02 +0800, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
    > > > > >> >> Hi Shaohua,
    > > > > >> >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> wrote:
    > > > > >> >> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 05:44:40PM +0800, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
    > > > > >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> wrote:
    > > > > >> >> >> > Currently a queue can only dispatch up to 4 requests if there are other queues.
    > > > > >> >> >> > This isn't optimal, device can handle more requests, for example, AHCI can
    > > > > >> >> >> > handle 31 requests. I can understand the limit is for fairness, but we could
    > > > > >> >> >> > do some tweaks:
    > > > > >> >> >> > 1. if the queue still has a lot of slice left, sounds we could ignore the limit
    > > > > >> >> >> ok. You can even scale the limit proportionally to the remaining slice
    > > > > >> >> >> (see below).
    > > > > >> >> > I can't understand the meaning of below scale. cfq_slice_used_soon() means
    > > > > >> >> > dispatched requests can finish before slice is used, so other queues will not be
    > > > > >> >> > impacted. I thought/hope a cfq_slice_idle time is enough to finish the
    > > > > >> >> > dispatched requests.
    > > > > >> >> cfq_slice_idle is 8ms, that is the average time to complete 1 request
    > > > > >> >> on most disks. If you have more requests dispatched on a
    > > > > >> >> NCQ-rotational disk (non-RAID), it will take more time. Probably a
    > > > > >> >> linear formula is not the most accurate, but still more accurate than
    > > > > >> >> taking just 1 cfq_slice_idle. If you can experiment a bit, you could
    > > > > >> >> also try:
    > > > > >> >>  cfq_slice_idle * ilog2(nr_dispatched+1)
    > > > > >> >>  cfq_slice_idle * (1<<(ilog2(nr_dispatched+1)>>1))
    > > > > >> >>
    > > > > >> >> >
    > > > > >> >> >> > 2. we could keep the check only when cfq_latency is on. For uses who don't care
    > > > > >> >> >> > about latency should be happy to have device fully piped on.
    > > > > >> >> >> I wouldn't overload low_latency with this meaning. You can obtain the
    > > > > >> >> >> same by setting the quantum to 32.
    > > > > >> >> > As this impact fairness, so natually thought we could use low_latency. I'll remove
    > > > > >> >> > the check in next post.
    > > > > >> >> Great.
    > > > > >> >> >> > I have a test of random direct io of two threads, each has 32 requests one time
    > > > > >> >> >> > without patch: 78m/s
    > > > > >> >> >> > with tweak 1: 138m/s
    > > > > >> >> >> > with two tweaks and disable latency: 156m/s
    > > > > >> >> >>
    > > > > >> >> >> Please, test also with competing seq/random(depth1)/async workloads,
    > > > > >> >> >> and measure also introduced latencies.
    > > > > >> >> > depth1 should be ok, as if device can only send one request, it should not require
    > > > > >> >> > more requests from ioscheduler.
    > > > > >> >> I mean have a run with, at the same time:
    > > > > >> >> * one seq reader,
    > > > > >> >> * h random readers with depth 1 (non-aio)
    > > > > >> >> * one async seq writer
    > > > > >> >> * k random readers with large depth.
    > > > > >> >> In this way, you can see if the changes you introduce to boost your
    > > > > >> >> workload affect more realistic scenarios, in which various workloads
    > > > > >> >> are mixed.
    > > > > >> >> I explicitly add the depth1 random readers, since they are sceduled
    > > > > >> >> differently than the large (>4) depth ones.
    > > > > >> > I tried a fio script which does like your description, but the data
    > > > > >> > isn't stable, especially the write speed, other kind of io speed is
    > > > > >> > stable. Apply below patch doesn't make things worse (still write speed
    > > > > >> > isn't stable, other io is stable), so I can't say if the patch passes
    > > > > >> > the test, but it appears latency reported by fio hasn't change. I adopt
    > > > > >> > the slice_idle * dispatched approach, which I thought should be safe.
    > > > > >>
    > > > > >> I'm doing some tests right now on a single ncq rotational disk, and
    > > > > >> the average service time when submitting with a high depth is halved
    > > > > >> w.r.t. depth 1, so I think you could test also with the formula :
    > > > > >> slice_idle * dispatched / 2. It should give a performance boost,
    > > > > >> without noticeable impact on latency.
    > > > > >>
    > > > > >
    > > > > > But I guess the right comparison here would service times vary when we
    > > > > > push queue depths from 4 to higher (as done by this patch).
    > > > >
    > > > > I think here we want to determine the average cost of a request, when
    > > > > there are many submitted.
    > > > >
    > > > > > Were you
    > > > > > running deep seeky queues or sequential queues. Curious to know whether
    > > > > > service times reduced even in case of deep seeky queues on this single
    > > > > > disk.
    > > > >
    > > > > Seeky queues. Seeks where rather small (not more than 1/64 of the
    > > > > whole disk), but already meaningful for comparison.
    > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I think this patch breaks the meaning of cfq_quantum? Now we can allow
    > > > > > dispatch of more requests from the same queue. I had kind of liked the
    > > > > > idea of respecting cfq_quantum. Especially it can help in testing. With
    > > > > > this patch cfq_quantum will more or less loose its meaning.
    > > > > cfq_quantum will still be enforced at the end of the slice, so its
    > > > > meaning of how many requests can be still pending when you finish your
    > > > > slice is preserved.
    > > >
    > > > Not always and it will depend how accurate your approximation of service
    > > > time is. If per request completion time is more than approximation (in
    > > > this case slice_idle), than you will end up with more requests in dispatch
    > > > queue from one cfqq at the time of slice expiry.
    > > we use slice_idle for a long time and no complain. So assume the approximation
    > > of service time is good.
    >
    > slice_idle is a variable and user can easily change it to 1ms and even 0.
    > In that case you will be theoritically be ready to dispatch 100/1 requests
    > from the cfqq?
    User changing it should know what he does. A less-experienced user can mess a lot
    of things, which we don't care.

    > > > > One can argue, instead, that this reduces a bit the effectiveness of
    > > > > preemption on ncq disks.
    > > > > However, I don't think preemption is the solution for low latency,
    > > > > while cfq_quantum reduction is.
    > > > > With this change in place, we could change the default cfq_quantum to
    > > > > a smaller number (ideally 1), to have lowest number of leftovers when
    > > > > the slice finishes, while still driving deep queues at the beginning
    > > > > of the slice.
    > > >
    > > > I think using cfq_quantum as hard limit might be a better idea as it gives
    > > > more predictable control. Instead of treating it as soft limit and trying
    > > > to meet it at the end of slice expiry based on our approximation of
    > > > predicted completion time.
    > > Current patch has such hard limit too (100ms/8m = 12 for sync io and 40ms/8
    > > = 5 for async io).
    >
    > This is software logic driven and not cfq_quantum driven. We can always
    > keep on changing how to approximate service time completions. So a user
    > first needs to read the code, derive internal limits and then do testing?
    >
    > I think than tunable looses its significance. That's why I am advocating
    > of treating cfq_quantum as hard limit and derive an internal soft limit
    > based on certain % of hard limit and use that as default max queue depth
    > for cfqq.
    >
    > In this case user knows no matter what, you are not dispatching more than
    > cfq_quantum requests from a queue at a time.
    ok, then the question is which value should cfq_quantum have. I have a test with
    below patch. Its performance still is good. With hard limit 8, speed is 100m/s.
    without hard limit, speed is 102m/s.


    Currently a queue can only dispatch up to 4 requests if there are other queues.
    This isn't optimal, device can handle more requests, for example, AHCI can
    handle 31 requests. I can understand the limit is for fairness, but we could
    do a tweak: if the queue still has a lot of slice left, sounds we could
    ignore the limit.
    Test shows this boost my workload (two thread randread of a SSD) from 78m/s
    to 100m/s.

    Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
    ---
    block/cfq-iosched.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---
    1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

    Index: linux-2.6/block/cfq-iosched.c
    ===================================================================
    --- linux-2.6.orig/block/cfq-iosched.c
    +++ linux-2.6/block/cfq-iosched.c
    @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
    * tunables
    */
    /* max queue in one round of service */
    -static const int cfq_quantum = 4;
    +static const int cfq_quantum = 8;
    static const int cfq_fifo_expire[2] = { HZ / 4, HZ / 8 };
    /* maximum backwards seek, in KiB */
    static const int cfq_back_max = 16 * 1024;
    @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ static int cfq_slice_idle = HZ / 125;
    static const int cfq_target_latency = HZ * 3/10; /* 300 ms */
    static const int cfq_hist_divisor = 4;

    +#define CFQ_SOFT_QUANTUM (4)
    +
    /*
    * offset from end of service tree
    */
    @@ -2242,6 +2244,19 @@ static int cfq_forced_dispatch(struct cf
    return dispatched;
    }

    +static inline bool cfq_slice_used_soon(struct cfq_data *cfqd,
    + struct cfq_queue *cfqq)
    +{
    + /* the queue hasn't finished any request, can't estimate */
    + if (cfq_cfqq_slice_new(cfqq) || cfqq->dispatched >= cfqd->cfq_quantum)
    + return 1;
    + if (time_after(jiffies + cfqd->cfq_slice_idle * cfqq->dispatched,
    + cfqq->slice_end))
    + return 1;
    +
    + return 0;
    +}
    +
    static bool cfq_may_dispatch(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *cfqq)
    {
    unsigned int max_dispatch;
    @@ -2258,7 +2273,10 @@ static bool cfq_may_dispatch(struct cfq_
    if (cfqd->sync_flight && !cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq))
    return false;

    - max_dispatch = cfqd->cfq_quantum;
    + max_dispatch = cfqd->cfq_quantum / 2;
    + if (max_dispatch < CFQ_SOFT_QUANTUM)
    + max_dispatch = min_t(unsigned int, CFQ_SOFT_QUANTUM,
    + cfqd->cfq_quantum);
    if (cfq_class_idle(cfqq))
    max_dispatch = 1;

    @@ -2275,7 +2293,7 @@ static bool cfq_may_dispatch(struct cfq_
    /*
    * We have other queues, don't allow more IO from this one
    */
    - if (cfqd->busy_queues > 1)
    + if (cfqd->busy_queues > 1 && cfq_slice_used_soon(cfqd, cfqq))
    return false;

    /*
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-01-12 04:11    [W:0.040 / U:124.696 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site