lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC]cfq-iosched: quantum check tweak
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:48:20PM +0800, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:07:56AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > > > > > 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.
> >
>
> The point is that there is no obivious co-relation between slice_idle and
> cfq_quantum. Even an experienced user would not expect that changing
> slice_idle silently will enable dispatching more requests from each cfqq.
Agree slice_idle hasn't relationship with cfq_quantum. Yes, there are more requests
dispatched, but it shouldn't impact user experience. If it does, then the patch fails.

> > 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)
>
> We don't have to hardcode CFQ_SOFT_QUANTUM or in fact we don't need it. We can
> derive the soft limit from hard limit (cfq_quantum). Say soft limit will be
> 50% of cfq_quantum value.
I'm hoping this doesn't give user a surprise. Say cfq_quantum sets to 7, then we
start doing throttling from 3 requests. Adding the CFQ_SOFT_QUANTUM gives a compatibility
against old behavior at least. Am I over thinking?

> > + 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;
>
> So I guess here we can write something as follows.
>
> if (cfqd->busy_queues > 1 && cfq_slice_used_soon(cfqd, cfqq))
> return false;
>
> if (cfqd->busy_queues == 1)
> max_dispatch = -1;
> else
> /*
> * Normally we start throttling cfqq when cfq_quantum/2
> * requests have been dispatched. But we can drive
> * deeper queue depths at the beginning of slice
> * subjected to upper limit of cfq_quantum.
> */
> max_dispatch = cfqd->cfq_quantum;
ok.

Thanks,
Shaohua


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-13 09:19    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site