lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] cfq-iosched: rework seeky detection
    On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 03:09:31PM +0800, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
    > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> wrote:
    > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 04:52:59PM +0800, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
    > >> Hi
    > >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> wrote:
    > >> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:46:23PM +0800, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
    > >> >> Hi,
    > >> >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> wrote:
    > >> >> > On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 11:59:17PM +0800, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
    > >> >> >> Current seeky detection is based on average seek lenght.
    > >> >> >> This is suboptimal, since the average will not distinguish between:
    > >> >> >> * a process doing medium sized seeks
    > >> >> >> * a process doing some sequential requests interleaved with larger seeks
    > >> >> >> and even a medium seek can take lot of time, if the requested sector
    > >> >> >> happens to be behind the disk head in the rotation (50% probability).
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> Therefore, we change the seeky queue detection to work as follows:
    > >> >> >> * each request can be classified as sequential if it is very close to
    > >> >> >>   the current head position, i.e. it is likely in the disk cache (disks
    > >> >> >>   usually read more data than requested, and put it in cache for
    > >> >> >>   subsequent reads). Otherwise, the request is classified as seeky.
    > >> >> >> * an history window of the last 32 requests is kept, storing the
    > >> >> >>   classification result.
    > >> >> >> * A queue is marked as seeky if more than 1/8 of the last 32 requests
    > >> >> >>   were seeky.
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> This patch fixes a regression reported by Yanmin, on mmap 64k random
    > >> >> >> reads.
    > >> >> > Can we not count a big request (say the request data is >= 32k) as seeky
    > >> >> > regardless the seek distance? In this way we can also make a 64k random sync
    > >> >> > read not as seeky.
    > >> >> I think I understand what you are proposing, but I don't think request
    > >> >> size should
    > >> >> matter at all for rotational disk.
    > >> > randread a 32k bs  definitely has better throughput than a 4k bs. So the request
    > >> > size does matter. From iops point of view, 64k and 4k might not have difference
    > >> > in device, but from performance point of view, they have big difference.
    > >> Assume we have two queues, one with 64k requests, and an other with 4k requests,
    > >> and that our ideal disk will service them with the same IOPS 'v'.
    > >> Then, servicing for 100ms the first, and then for 100ms the second, we
    > >> will have, averaging on the
    > >> 200ms period of the schedule:
    > >> first queue IOPS = v * 100/200 = v/2
    > >> second queue IOPS = v * 100/200 = v/2
    > >> Now the bandwidth will be simply IOPS * request size.
    > >> If instead, you service one request from one queue, and one from the
    > >> other (and keep switching for 200ms),
    > >> with v IOPS, each queue will obtain again v/2 IOPS, i.e. exactly the
    > >> same numbers.
    > >>
    > >> But, instead, if we have a 2-disk RAID 0, with stripe >= 64k, and the
    > >> 64k accesses are aligned (do not cross the stripe), we will have 50%
    > >> probability that the requests from the 2 queues are serviced in
    > >> parallel, thus increasing the total IOPS and bandwidth. This cannot
    > >> happen if you service for 100ms a single depth-1 seeky queue.
    > >>
    > >> >
    > >> >> Usually, the disk firmware will load a big chunk of data in its cache even when
    > >> >> requested to read a single sector, and will provide following ones
    > >> >> from the cache
    > >> >> if you read them sequentially.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Now, in CFQ, what we really mean by saying that a queue is seeky is that
    > >> >> waiting a bit in order to serve an other request from this queue doesn't
    > >> >> give any benefit w.r.t. switching to an other queue.
    > >> > If no idle, we might switch to a random 4k access or any kind of queues. Compared
    > >> > to continue big request access and switch to other queue with small block, no switching
    > >> > does give benefit.
    > >> CFQ in 2.6.33 works differently than it worked before.
    > >> Now, seeky queues have an aggregate time slice, and within this time
    > >> slice, you will switch
    > >> between seeky queues fairly. So it cannot happen that a seeky queue
    > >> loses its time slice.
    > > Sorry for my ignorance here, from the code, I know we have a forced slice for a domain and
    > > service tree, but for a queue, it appears we haven't an aggregate time slice.
    > By aggregate time slice for seeky queues, I mean the time slice
    > assigned to the sync-noidle service tree.
    >
    > > From my understanding,
    > > we don't add a queue's remaining slice to its next run, and queue might not even init its slice if
    > > it's non-timedout preempted before it finishes its first request, which is normal for a seeky
    > > queue with a ncq device.
    >
    > Exactly for this reason, a seeky queue has no private time slice (it
    > is meaningless, since we want multiple seeky queues working in
    > parallel), but it participates fairly to the service tree's slice. The
    > service tree's slice is computed proportionally to the number of seeky
    > queues w.r.t. all queues in the domain, so you also have that seeky
    > queues are serviced fairly w.r.t. other queues as well.
    Ok, I got your point. An off topic issue:
    For a queue with iodepth 1 and a queue with iodepth 32, looks this mechanism can't
    guanantee fairness. the queue with big iodepth can submit more requests
    in every switch.

    Thanks,
    Shaohua
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-01-13 09:03    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean