Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3]Subject: CFQ: add think time check for group | From | Shaohua Li <> | Date | Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:08:21 +0800 |
| |
On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 23:06 +0800, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 09:58:40AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > [..] > > > > [global] > > > > runtime=30 > > > > direct=1 > > > > > > > > [test1] > > > > cgroup=test1 > > > > cgroup_weight=1000 > > > > rw=randread > > > > ioengine=libaio > > > > size=500m > > > > runtime=30 > > > > directory=/mnt > > > > filename=file1 > > > > thinktime=9000 > > > > > > > > [test2] > > > > cgroup=test2 > > > > cgroup_weight=1000 > > > > rw=randread > > > > ioengine=libaio > > > > size=500m > > > > runtime=30 > > > > directory=/mnt > > > > filename=file2 > > > > > > > > patched base > > > > test1 64k 39k > > > > test2 540k 540k > > > > total 604k 578k > > > > > > > > group1 gets much better throughput because it waits less time. > > I don't understand it. Thinktime of group test1 is more than 8ms. So now > we should not be idling on test1. Hence test1 should lose some share and > test2 should gain disk share and overall throughput should go up. > > I am wondering why throughput of test2 did not go up? hmm, actually the throughput of test2 is better. Maybe I wrote it down wrong. test2 throughput is about 548k/s. Sorry.
> Also can you run some tests to make sure that disk shares of regular > workloads (thinktime less than 8ms) are not impacted. I tried think time 2ms or no think time. there is no difference. the result is quite stable.
Thanks, Shaohua
| |