[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] block: Per-partition block IO performance histograms
    On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Jeff Moyer <> wrote:
    > Divyesh Shah <> writes:
    >> The following patchset implements per partition 2-d histograms for IO to block
    >> devices. The 3 types of histograms added are:
    >> 1) request histograms - 2-d histogram of total request time in ms (queueing +
    >>    service) broken down by IO size (in bytes).
    >> 2) dma histograms - 2-d histogram of total service time in ms broken down by
    >>    IO size (in bytes).
    >> 3) seek histograms - 1-d histogram of seek distance
    >> All of these histograms are per-partition. The first 2 are further divided into
    >> separate read and write histograms. The buckets for these histograms are
    >> configurable via config options as well as at runtime (per-device).
    > Do you also keep track of statistics for the entire device?  The I/O
    > schedulers operate at the device level, not the partition level.

    Yes. This patch maintains stats for part0 too which represents the
    entire device.

    >> These histograms have proven very valuable to us over the years to understand
    >> the seek distribution of IOs over our production machines, detect large
    >> queueing delays, find latency outliers, etc. by being used as part of an
    >> always-on monitoring system.
    >> They can be reset by writing any value to them which makes them useful for
    >> tests and debugging too.
    >> This was initially written by Edward Falk in 2006 and I've forward ported
    >> and improved it a few times it across kernel versions.
    >> He had also sent a very old version of this patchset (minus some features like
    >> runtime configurable buckets) back then to lkml - see
    >> Some of the reasons mentioned for not including these patches are given below.
    >> I'm requesting re-consideration for this patchset in light of the following
    >> arguments.
    >> 1) This can be done with blktrace too, why add another API?
    > [...]
    >> This is about 1.8% average throughput loss per thread.
    >> The extra cpu time spent with blktrace is in addition to this loss of
    >> throughput. This overhead will only go up on faster SSDs.
    > I don't see any analysis of the overhead of your patch set.  Would you
    > mind providing those numbers?

    I will try to run some tests and come back with more results (as
    mentioned on the earlier response, there will be some delay).


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

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-04-16 01:53    [W:0.024 / U:5.148 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site