lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] cfq-iosched: fixing RQ_NOIDLE handling.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:08:23PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 04:30:23PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> >> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > I don't mind looking at traces. Do let me know where can I access those.
>
> Forwarded privately.
>
> >> Now, to answer your question, the jbd2 thread runs and issues a barrier,
> >> which causes a forced dispatch of requests. After that a new queue is
> >> selected, and since the fs_mark thread is blocked on the journal commit,
> >> it's always the fio process that gets to run.
> >
> > Ok, that explains it. So somehow after the barrier, fio always wins
> > as issues next read request before the fs_mark is able to issue the
> > next set of writes.
> >
> >>
> >> This, of course, raises the question of why the blk_yield patches didn't
> >> run into the same problem. Looking back at some saved traces, I don't
> >> see WBS (write barrier sync) requests, so I wonder if barriers weren't
> >> supported by my last storage system.
> >
> > I think that blk_yield patches will also run into the same issue if
> > barriers are enabled.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Here are the results again with barriers disabled for Corrado's patch:
>
> fs_mark: 348.2 files/sec
> fio: 53324.6 KB/s
>
> Remember that deadline was seeing 450 files/sec and 78 MB/s. So, in
> this case, the buffered reader appears to be starved. Looking into this
> further, I found that the journal thread is running with I/O priority 0,
> while the fio and fs_mark processes are running at the default (4).
> Because the jbd thread has a higher I/O priority, its requests are
> always closer to the front of the sort list, and thus the sync-noidle
> workload is chosen more often than the sync workload. This essentially
> results in an elevated I/O priority for the fs_mark process as well.
> While troubling, that problem is not directly related to the problem
> we're looking at.
>
> So, I'm still in favor of Corrado's approach. Are there any remaining
> dissenting opinions on this?

Nope. I am fine with moving all WRITE_SYNC with RQ_NOIDLE to sync-noidle
tree and also marking jbd writes as WRITE_SYNC. By bringing dependent
threads on single service tree, we don't have to worry about slice
yielding.

Acked-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>

Thanks
Vivek


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-19 22:33    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans