lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Switching to MQ by default may generate some bug reports
From
Date

> Il giorno 03 ago 2017, alle ore 10:51, Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> ha scritto:
>
> Hi Christoph,
>
> I know the reasons for switching to MQ by default but just be aware that it's
> not without hazards albeit it the biggest issues I've seen are switching
> CFQ to BFQ. On my home grid, there is some experimental automatic testing
> running every few weeks searching for regressions. Yesterday, it noticed
> that creating some work files for a postgres simulator called pgioperf
> was 38.33% slower and it auto-bisected to the switch to MQ. This is just
> linearly writing two files for testing on another benchmark and is not
> remarkable. The relevant part of the report is
>
> Last good/First bad commit
> ==========================
> Last good commit: 6d311fa7d2c18659d040b9beba5e41fe24c2a6f5
> First bad commit: 5c279bd9e40624f4ab6e688671026d6005b066fa
> From 5c279bd9e40624f4ab6e688671026d6005b066fa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 10:27:55 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] scsi: default to scsi-mq
> Remove the SCSI_MQ_DEFAULT config option and default to the blk-mq I/O
> path now that we had plenty of testing, and have I/O schedulers for
> blk-mq. The module option to disable the blk-mq path is kept around for
> now.
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> Signed-off-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
> drivers/scsi/Kconfig | 11 -----------
> drivers/scsi/scsi.c | 4 ----
> 2 files changed, 15 deletions(-)
>
> Comparison
> ==========
> initial initial last penup first
> good-v4.12 bad-16f73eb02d7e good-6d311fa7 good-d06c587d bad-5c279bd9
> User min 0.06 ( 0.00%) 0.14 (-133.33%) 0.14 (-133.33%) 0.06 ( 0.00%) 0.19 (-216.67%)
> User mean 0.06 ( 0.00%) 0.14 (-133.33%) 0.14 (-133.33%) 0.06 ( 0.00%) 0.19 (-216.67%)
> User stddev 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%)
> User coeffvar 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%)
> User max 0.06 ( 0.00%) 0.14 (-133.33%) 0.14 (-133.33%) 0.06 ( 0.00%) 0.19 (-216.67%)
> System min 10.04 ( 0.00%) 10.75 ( -7.07%) 10.05 ( -0.10%) 10.16 ( -1.20%) 10.73 ( -6.87%)
> System mean 10.04 ( 0.00%) 10.75 ( -7.07%) 10.05 ( -0.10%) 10.16 ( -1.20%) 10.73 ( -6.87%)
> System stddev 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%)
> System coeffvar 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%)
> System max 10.04 ( 0.00%) 10.75 ( -7.07%) 10.05 ( -0.10%) 10.16 ( -1.20%) 10.73 ( -6.87%)
> Elapsed min 251.53 ( 0.00%) 351.05 ( -39.57%) 252.83 ( -0.52%) 252.96 ( -0.57%) 347.93 ( -38.33%)
> Elapsed mean 251.53 ( 0.00%) 351.05 ( -39.57%) 252.83 ( -0.52%) 252.96 ( -0.57%) 347.93 ( -38.33%)
> Elapsed stddev 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%)
> Elapsed coeffvar 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%)
> Elapsed max 251.53 ( 0.00%) 351.05 ( -39.57%) 252.83 ( -0.52%) 252.96 ( -0.57%) 347.93 ( -38.33%)
> CPU min 4.00 ( 0.00%) 3.00 ( 25.00%) 4.00 ( 0.00%) 4.00 ( 0.00%) 3.00 ( 25.00%)
> CPU mean 4.00 ( 0.00%) 3.00 ( 25.00%) 4.00 ( 0.00%) 4.00 ( 0.00%) 3.00 ( 25.00%)
> CPU stddev 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%)
> CPU coeffvar 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%)
> CPU max 4.00 ( 0.00%) 3.00 ( 25.00%) 4.00 ( 0.00%) 4.00 ( 0.00%) 3.00 ( 25.00%)
>
> The "Elapsed mean" line is what the testing and auto-bisection was paying
> attention to. Commit 16f73eb02d7e is simply the head commit at the time
> the continuous testing started. The first "bad commit" is the last column.
>
> It's not the only slowdown that has been observed from other testing when
> examining whether it's ok to switch to MQ by default. The biggest slowdown
> observed was with a modified version of dbench4 -- the modifications use
> shorter, but representative, load files to avoid timing artifacts and
> reports time to complete a load file instead of throughput as throughput
> is kind of meaningless for dbench4
>
> dbench4 Loadfile Execution Time
> 4.12.0 4.12.0
> legacy-cfq mq-bfq
> Amean 1 80.67 ( 0.00%) 83.68 ( -3.74%)
> Amean 2 92.87 ( 0.00%) 121.63 ( -30.96%)
> Amean 4 102.72 ( 0.00%) 474.33 (-361.77%)
> Amean 32 2543.93 ( 0.00%) 1927.65 ( 24.23%)
>
> The units are "milliseconds to complete a load file" so as thread count
> increased, there were some fairly bad slowdowns. The most dramatic
> slowdown was observed on a machine with a controller with on-board cache
>
> 4.12.0 4.12.0
> legacy-cfq mq-bfq
> Amean 1 289.09 ( 0.00%) 128.43 ( 55.57%)
> Amean 2 491.32 ( 0.00%) 794.04 ( -61.61%)
> Amean 4 875.26 ( 0.00%) 9331.79 (-966.17%)
> Amean 8 2074.30 ( 0.00%) 317.79 ( 84.68%)
> Amean 16 3380.47 ( 0.00%) 669.51 ( 80.19%)
> Amean 32 7427.25 ( 0.00%) 8821.75 ( -18.78%)
> Amean 256 53376.81 ( 0.00%) 69006.94 ( -29.28%)
>
> The slowdown wasn't universal but at 4 threads, it was severe. There
> are other examples but it'd just be a lot of noise and not change the
> central point.
>
> The major problems were all observed switching from CFQ to BFQ on single disk
> rotary storage. It's not machine specific as 5 separate machines noticed
> problems with dbench and fio when switching to MQ on kernel 4.12. Weirdly,
> I've seen cases of read starvation in the presence of heavy writers
> using fio to generate the workload which was surprising to me. Jan Kara
> suggested that it may be because the read workload is not being identified
> as "interactive" but I didn't dig into the details myself and have zero
> understanding of BFQ. I was only interested in answering the question "is
> it safe to switch the default and will the performance be similar enough
> to avoid bug reports?" and concluded that the answer is "no".
>
> For what it's worth, I've noticed on SSDs that switching from legacy-mq
> to deadline-mq also slowed down but in many cases the slowdown was small
> enough that it may be tolerable and not generate many bug reports. Also,
> mq-deadline appears to receive more attention so issues there are probably
> going to be noticed faster.
>
> I'm not suggesting for a second that you fix this or switch back to legacy
> by default because it's BFQ, Paulo is cc'd and it'll have to be fixed
> eventually but you might see "workload foo is slower on 4.13" reports that
> bisect to this commit. What filesystem is used changes the results but at
> least btrfs, ext3, ext4 and xfs experience slowdowns.
>
> For Paulo, if you want to try preemptively dealing with regression reports
> before 4.13 releases then all the tests in question can be reproduced with
> https://github.com/gormanm/mmtests . The most relevant test configurations
> I've seen so far are
>
> configs/config-global-dhp__io-dbench4-async
> configs/config-global-dhp__io-fio-randread-async-randwrite
> configs/config-global-dhp__io-fio-randread-async-seqwrite
> configs/config-global-dhp__io-fio-randread-sync-heavywrite
> configs/config-global-dhp__io-fio-randread-sync-randwrite
> configs/config-global-dhp__pgioperf
>

Hi Mel,
as it already happened with the latest Phoronix benchmark article (and
with other test results reported several months ago on this list), bad
results may be caused (also) by the fact that the low-latency, default
configuration of BFQ is being used. This configuration is the default
one because the motivation for yet-another-scheduler as BFQ is that it
drastically reduces latency for interactive and soft real-time tasks
(e.g., opening an app or playing/streaming a video), when there is
some background I/O. Low-latency heuristics are willing to sacrifice
throughput when this provides a large benefit in terms of the above
latency.

Things do change if, instead, one wants to use BFQ for tasks that
don't need this kind of low-latency guarantees, but need only the
highest possible sustained throughput. This seems to be the case for
all the tests you have listed above. In this case, it doesn't make
much sense to leave low-latency heuristics on. Throughput may only
get worse for these tests, and the elapsed time can only increase.

How to switch low-latency heuristics off?
echo 0 > /sys/block/<dev>/queue/iosched/low_latency

Of course, BFQ may not be optimal for every workload, even if
low-latency mode is switched off. In addition, there may still be
some bug. I'll repeat your tests on a machine of mine ASAP.

Thanks,
Paolo

> --
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-03 11:23    [W:0.105 / U:16.824 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site