lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC/RFT PATCH] cfq-iosched: Implement cfq group idling
Date
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> writes:

> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:39:45AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > Currently we idle on sequential queues and allow dispatch from a single
>> > queue and that can become a bottleneck on higher end storage. For example
>> > on my HP EVA, I can run multiple sequential streams and achieve top BW
>> > of around 350 MB/s. But with CFQ, dispatching from single queue does not
>> > keep the array busy (limits to 150-180 MB/s with 4 or 8 processes).
>> >
>> > One approach to solve this issue is simply use slice_idle = 0. But this
>> > also takes away the any service differentiation between groups.
>>
>> That also takes away service differentiation between queues. If you
>> want to maintain that at all, then this is really just pushing the
>> problem to another layer.
>>
>
> Yes it does take away the io priority with-in group. But I think that's
> the trade-off and that's not default. So those who don't require ioprio
> stuff working with-in group and those who know that they have got
> faster storage will set slice_idle=0. For rest of the SATA users default
> is still slice_idle=8.

[snip]

Sorry, Vivek, I'm actually hijacking your thread. ;-) I know what the
alternatives are, what I'm looking for is guidance on what Jens wants to
do with CFQ. We can discuss the merits of different approaches once we
agree on a set of requirements.

Cheers,
Jeff


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-08 16:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans