Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:02:03 +0800 | From | Shaohua Li <> | Subject | Re: cfq-iosched: tiobench regression |
| |
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 06:16:27PM +0800, Corrado Zoccolo wrote: > Hi Shaohua, > On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> wrote: > > df5fe3e8e13883f58dc97489076bbcc150789a21 > > b3b6d0408c953524f979468562e7e210d8634150 > > The coop merge is too aggressive. For example, if two tasks are reading two > > files where the two files have some adjecent blocks, cfq will immediately > > merge them. cfq_rq_close() also has trouble, sometimes the seek_mean is very > > big. I did a test to make cfq_rq_close() always checks the distence according > > to CIC_SEEK_THR, but still saw a lot of wrong merge. (BTW, why we take a long > > distence far away request as close. Taking them close doesn't improve any thoughtput > > to me. Maybe we should always use CIC_SEEK_THR as close criteria). > Yes, when deciding if two queues are going to be merged, we should use > the constant CIC_SEEK_THR. Ok, will prepare a seperate patch for this.
> > So sounds we need make split more aggressive. But the split is too lazay, > > which requires to wait 1s. Time based check isn't reliable as queue might not > > run at given time, so uses a small time isn't ok. > 1s is too much, but I wouldn't abandon a time based approach. To fix > the problem of queue not being run, you can consider a slice. If at > the end of the slice, the queue is seeky, you split it. Sounds good, will take this way.
Thanks, Shaohua
| |