[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: trying to understand READ_META, READ_SYNC, WRITE_SYNC & co
    On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 01:03:20PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 09:44:20PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
    > > Let me explain the general idling logic and then see if it makes sense in case
    > > of WRITE_SYNC.
    > >
    > > Once a request has completed, if the cfq queue is empty, we have two choices.
    > > Either expire the cfq queue and move on to dispatch requests from a
    > > different queue or we idle on the queue hoping we will get more IO from
    > > same process/queue.
    > queues are basically processes in this context?
    > > Idling can help (on SATA disks with high seek cost), if
    > > our guess was right and soon we got another request from same process. We
    > > cut down on number of seeks hence increased throghput.
    > I don't really understand the logic behind this. If we lots of I/O
    > that actually is close to each other we should generally submit it in
    > one batch. That is true for pagecache writeback, that is true for
    > metadata (at least in XFS..), and it's true for any sane application
    > doing O_DIRECT / O_SYNC style I/O.
    > What workloads produde I/O that is local (not random) writes with small
    > delays between the I/O requests?

    Biggest thing is multiple small files operations like on the same
    directory. Best case I measured back when doing AS io scheduler
    versus deadline was about 100x improvement on a uncached kernel
    grep workload when competing with a streaming writeout (the writeout
    probably ended up going somewhat slower naturally, but it is fairer).

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-06-26 11:29    [W:0.038 / U:8.724 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site