lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/6 v3] cfq-iosched: Introduce vdisktime and io weight for CFQ queue
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:58:18AM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 04:51:00PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
> >> Introduce vdisktime and io weight for CFQ queue scheduling. Currently, io priority
> >> maps to a range [100,1000]. It also gets rid of cfq_slice_offset() logic and makes
> >> use the same scheduling algorithm as CFQ group does. This helps for CFQ queue and
> >> group scheduling on the same service tree.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com>
> >
> > [..]
> >> @@ -1246,47 +1278,71 @@ static void cfq_service_tree_add(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *cfqq,
> >>
> >> service_tree = service_tree_for(cfqq->cfqg, cfqq_prio(cfqq),
> >> cfqq_type(cfqq));
> >> + /*
> >> + * For the time being, put the newly added CFQ queue at the end of the
> >> + * service tree.
> >> + */
> >> + if (RB_EMPTY_NODE(&cfqe->rb_node)) {
> >> + /*
> >> + * If this CFQ queue moves to another group, the original
> >> + * vdisktime makes no sense any more, reset the vdisktime
> >> + * here.
> >> + */
> >> + parent = rb_last(&service_tree->rb);
> >> + if (parent) {
> >> + u64 boost;
> >> + s64 __vdisktime;
> >> +
> >> + __cfqe = rb_entry_entity(parent);
> >> + cfqe->vdisktime = __cfqe->vdisktime + CFQ_IDLE_DELAY;
> >> +
> >> + /* Give some vdisktime boost according to its weight */
> >> + boost = cfq_get_boost(cfqd, cfqe);
> >> + __vdisktime = cfqe->vdisktime - boost;
> >> + if (__vdisktime > service_tree->min_vdisktime)
> >> + cfqe->vdisktime = __vdisktime;
> >> + else
> >> + cfqe->vdisktime = service_tree->min_vdisktime;
> >> + } else
> >> + cfqe->vdisktime = service_tree->min_vdisktime;
> >
> > Hi Gui,
> >
> > Is above logic actually working? I suspect that most of the time all the
> > new queues will end up getting same vdisktime and that is st->min_vdisktime
> > and there will be no service differentiation across various prio.
> >
> > Reason being, on SSD, idle is disabled. So very few/no queue will consume
> > its slice and follow reque path. So every queue will be new. Now you are
> > doing following.
> >
> > cfqd->vdisktime = vdisktime_of_parent + IDLE_DELAY - boost
> >
> > assume vdisktime_of_parent=st->min_vdisktime, then (IDLE_DELAY - boost)
> > is always going to be a -ve number and hence cfqd->vdisktime will
> > default to st->min_vdisktime. (IDLE_DELAY=200 while boost should be a huge
> > value due to SERVICE_SHIFT thing).
>
> Vivek,
>
> Actually, I tested on rotational disk with idling disabled, I saw service
> differentiation between two tasks with different ioprio.
> I don't have a SSD on hand, But I'll get one and do more tests.

Ok, I am really not sure how did it work for you because boost will
turn out to be huge number in comparision to IDLE_DELAY or vdisktime
of parent. If you have some blktrace data or if you can explain how
it is working will help in understanding it better.

>
> >
> > I think this logic needs refining. Maybe instead of subtracting the boost
> > we can instead place entities further away from st->min_vdisktime and
> > offset is higher for lower ioprio queues.
> >
> > cfqe->vdisktime = st->min_vdisktime + offset
> >
> > here offset is something similar to boost but reversed in nature in the
> > sense that lower weight has got lower offset and vice-versa.
>
> I'll consider this idea and try it.

I think I wrote it reversed. offset should be higher for lower weights
and lower for higher weights so that higher weight queues/groups can
dispatch IO earlier.

If this works fine, this will help with group logic also. Currently we
place all newly backlogged group at the end of sevice tree and this
results in no service differentiation of idling is disabled. (slice_idle
and group_idle). Keeping idling on can hurt very badly on faster sotrage
like storage arrays.

So I wanted to make sure that this logic works so that even for groups one
can disable idling on faster storage and still get some service differentaion
among groups.

Thanks
Vivek


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-20 12:13    [W:0.095 / U:7.820 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site