lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: io-scheduler tuning for better read/write ratio
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 06:44:06PM +0800, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26 2009, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 03:42:46AM +0800, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > > Ralf Gross <rg@STZ-Softwaretechnik.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Jeff Moyer schrieb:
> > > >> Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> writes:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Ralf Gross <rg@stz-softwaretechnik.com> writes:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Casey Dahlin schrieb:
> > > >> >>> On 06/16/2009 02:40 PM, Ralf Gross wrote:
> > > >> >>> > David Newall schrieb:
> > > >> >>> >> Ralf Gross wrote:
> > > >> >>> >>> write throughput is much higher than the read throughput (40 MB/s
> > > >> >>> >>> read, 90 MB/s write).
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>> > Hm, but I get higher read throughput (160-200 MB/s) if I don't write
> > > >> >>> > to the device at the same time.
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>> > Ralf
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> How specifically are you testing? It could depend a lot on the
> > > >> >>> particular access patterns you're using to test.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I did the basic tests with tiobench. The real test is a test backup
> > > >> >> (bacula) with 2 jobs that create 2 30 GB spool files on that device.
> > > >> >> The jobs partially write to the device in parallel. Depending which
> > > >> >> spool file reaches the 30 GB first, one starts reading from that file
> > > >> >> and writing to tape, while to other is still spooling.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > We are missing a lot of details, here. I guess the first thing I'd try
> > > >> > would be bumping up the max_readahead_kb parameter, since I'm guessing
> > > >> > that your backup application isn't driving very deep queue depths. If
> > > >> > that doesn't work, then please provide exact invocations of tiobench
> > > >> > that reprduce the problem or some blktrace output for your real test.
> > > >>
> > > >> Any news, Ralf?
> > > >
> > > > sorry for the delay. atm there are large backups running and using the
> > > > raid device for spooling. So I can't do any tests.
> > > >
> > > > Re. read ahead: I tested different settings from 8Kb to 65Kb, this
> > > > didn't help.
> > > >
> > > > I'll do some more tests when the backups are done (3-4 more days).
> > >
> > > The default is 128KB, I believe, so it's strange that you would test
> > > smaller values. ;) I would try something along the lines of 1 or 2 MB.
> > >
> > > I'm CCing Fengguang in case he has any suggestions.
> >
> > Jeff, thank you for the forwarding (and sorry for the long delay)!
> >
> > The read:write (or rather sync:async) ratio control is an IO scheduler
> > feature. CFQ has parameters slice_sync and slice_async for that.
> > What's more, CFQ will let async IO wait if there are any in flight
> > sync IO. This is good, but not quite enough. Normally sync IOs come
> > one by one, with some small idle time window in between. If we only
> > start dispatching async IOs after the last sync IO has completed for
> > eg. 1ms, then we may stop the async background write IOs when there
> > are active sync foreground read IO stream.
> >
> > This simple patch aims to address the writes-push-aside-reads problem.
> > Ralf, you can try applying this patch and run your workload with this
> > (huge) CFQ parameter:
> >
> > echo 1000 > /sys/block/sda/queue/iosched/slice_sync
> >
> > The patch is based on 2.6.30, but can be trivially backported if you
> > want to use some old kernel.
> >
> > It may impact overall (sync+async) IO throughput when there are one or
> > more ongoing sync IO streams, so requires considerable benchmarks and
> > adjustments.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fengguang
> > ---
> >
> > diff --git a/block/cfq-iosched.c b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> > index a55a9bd..14011b7 100644
> > --- a/block/cfq-iosched.c
> > +++ b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> > @@ -1064,7 +1064,6 @@ static void cfq_arm_slice_timer(struct cfq_data *cfqd)
> > if (blk_queue_nonrot(cfqd->queue) && cfqd->hw_tag)
> > return;
> >
> > - WARN_ON(!RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&cfqq->sort_list));
> > WARN_ON(cfq_cfqq_slice_new(cfqq));
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -2175,8 +2174,6 @@ static void cfq_completed_request(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
> > * or if we want to idle in case it has no pending requests.
> > */
> > if (cfqd->active_queue == cfqq) {
> > - const bool cfqq_empty = RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&cfqq->sort_list);
> > -
> > if (cfq_cfqq_slice_new(cfqq)) {
> > cfq_set_prio_slice(cfqd, cfqq);
> > cfq_clear_cfqq_slice_new(cfqq);
> > @@ -2190,8 +2187,8 @@ static void cfq_completed_request(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
> > */
> > if (cfq_slice_used(cfqq) || cfq_class_idle(cfqq))
> > cfq_slice_expired(cfqd, 1);
> > - else if (cfqq_empty && !cfq_close_cooperator(cfqd, cfqq, 1) &&
> > - sync && !rq_noidle(rq))
> > + else if (sync && !rq_noidle(rq) &&
> > + !cfq_close_cooperator(cfqd, cfqq, 1))
> > cfq_arm_slice_timer(cfqd);
> > }
>
> What's the purpose of this patch? If you have requests pending you don't
> want to arm the idle timer and wait, you want to dispatch those.

You are right, please ignore this mindless hacking patch.

Ralf, you can do the read/write ratio in the CFQ scheduler by tuning
the slice_sync/slice_async parameters.

For example,

echo 10 > /sys//block/sda/queue/iosched/slice_async
echo 100 > /sys//block/sda/queue/iosched/slice_sync

gives

-dsk/total-
read writ
66M 25M
65M 20M
49M 32M
84M 19M
46M 28M
61M 23M
55M 25M
67M 23M
76M 18M
46M 31M
56M 29M
54M 23M
76M 20M

while

echo 10 > /sys//block/sda/queue/iosched/slice_async
echo 300 > /sys//block/sda/queue/iosched/slice_sync

gives

-dsk/total-
read writ
102M 11M
82M 10M
100M 12M
86M 10M
95M 11M
102M 3168k
96M 11M
88M 10M
96M 12M

However too large slice_sync may not be desirable.

Thanks,
Fengguang


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-27 05:49    [W:0.061 / U:33.884 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site