[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] cfq: allow dispatching of both sync and async I/O together
Jens Axboe <> writes:

> On 21/06/10 21.49, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Hi,
>> In testing a workload that has a single fsync-ing process and another
>> process that does a sequential buffered read, I was unable to tune CFQ
>> to reach the throughput of deadline. This patch, along with the previous
>> one, brought CFQ in line with deadline when setting slice_idle to 0.
>> I'm not sure what the original reason for not allowing sync and async
>> I/O to be dispatched together was. If there is a workload I should be
>> testing that shows the inherent problems of this, please point me at it
>> and I will resume testing. Until and unless that workload is identified,
>> please consider applying this patch.
> The problematic case is/was a normal SATA drive with a buffered
> writer and an occasional reader. I'll have to double check my
> mail tomorrow, but iirc the issue was that the occasional reader
> would suffer great latencies since service times for that single
> IO would be delayed at the drive side. It could perhaps just be
> a bug in how we handle the slice idling on the read side when the
> IO gets delayed initially.
> So if my memory is correct, google for the fsync madness and
> interactiveness thread that we had some months ago and which
> caused a lot of tweaking. The commit adding this is
> 5ad531db6e0f3c3c985666e83d3c1c4d53acccf9 and was added back
> in July last year. So it was around that time that the mails went
> around.

OK. Thanks a ton for the pointers! I really appreciate it!


 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-21 22:07    [W:0.060 / U:4.808 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site