[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    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 <> writes:
    > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 04:30:23PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
    > >> Vivek Goyal <> 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

    Acked-by: Vivek Goyal <>


     \ /
      Last update: 2010-07-19 22:33    [W:0.022 / U:4.376 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site