lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 0/3]block: An IOPS based ioscheduler
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 01:12:29PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 14:50 +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 18:19 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 02:53:37PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > > An IOPS based I/O scheduler
> > > >
> > > > Flash based storage has some different characteristics against rotate disk.
> > > > 1. no I/O seek.
> > > > 2. read and write I/O cost usually is much different.
> > > > 3. Time which a request takes depends on request size.
> > > > 4. High throughput and IOPS, low latency.
> > > >
> > > > CFQ iosched does well for rotate disk, for example fair dispatching, idle
> > > > for sequential read. It also has optimization for flash based storage (for
> > > > item 1 above), but overall it's not designed for flash based storage. It's
> > > > a slice based algorithm. Since flash based storage request cost is very
> > > > low, and drive has big queue_depth is quite popular now which makes
> > > > dispatching cost even lower, CFQ's slice accounting (jiffy based)
> > > > doesn't work well. CFQ doesn't consider above item 2 & 3.
> > > >
> > > > FIOPS (Fair IOPS) ioscheduler is trying to fix the gaps. It's IOPS based, so
> > > > only targets for drive without I/O seek. It's quite similar like CFQ, but
> > > > the dispatch decision is made according to IOPS instead of slice.
> > > >
> > > > The algorithm is simple. Drive has a service tree, and each task lives in
> > > > the tree. The key into the tree is called vios (virtual I/O). Every request
> > > > has vios, which is calculated according to its ioprio, request size and so
> > > > on. Task's vios is the sum of vios of all requests it dispatches. FIOPS
> > > > always selects task with minimum vios in the service tree and let the task
> > > > dispatch request. The dispatched request's vios is then added to the task's
> > > > vios and the task is repositioned in the sevice tree.
> > > >
> > > > The series are orgnized as:
> > > > Patch 1: separate CFQ's io context management code. FIOPS will use it too.
> > > > Patch 2: The core FIOPS.
> > > > Patch 3: request read/write vios scale. This demontrates how the vios scale.
> > > >
> > > > To make the code simple for easy view, some scale code isn't included here,
> > > > some not implementated yet.
> > > >
> > > > TODO:
> > > > 1. ioprio support (have patch already)
> > > > 2. request size vios scale
> > > > 3. cgroup support
> > > > 4. tracing support
> > > > 5. automatically select default iosched according to QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT.
> > > >
> > > > Comments and suggestions are welcome!
> > >
> > > Benchmark results?
> > I didn't have data yet. The patches are still in earlier stage, I want
> > to focus on the basic idea first.
> since you asked, I tested in a 4 socket machine with 12 X25M SSD jbod,
> fs is ext4.
>
> workload percentage change with fiops against cfq
> fio_sync_read_4k -2
> fio_mediaplay_64k 0
> fio_mediaplay_128k 0
> fio_mediaplay_rr_64k 0
> fio_sync_read_rr_4k 0
> fio_sync_write_128k 0
> fio_sync_write_64k -1
> fio_sync_write_4k -2
> fio_sync_write_64k_create 0
> fio_sync_write_rr_64k_create 0
> fio_sync_write_128k_create 0
> fio_aio_randread_4k -4
> fio_aio_randread_64k 0
> fio_aio_randwrite_4k 1
> fio_aio_randwrite_64k 0
> fio_aio_randrw_4k -1
> fio_aio_randrw_64k 0
> fio_tpch 9
> fio_tpcc 0
> fio_mmap_randread_4k -1
> fio_mmap_randread_64k 1
> fio_mmap_randread_1k -8
> fio_mmap_randwrite_4k 35
> fio_mmap_randwrite_64k 22
> fio_mmap_randwrite_1k 28
> fio_mmap_randwrite_4k_halfbusy 24
> fio_mmap_randrw_4k 23
> fio_mmap_randrw_64k 4
> fio_mmap_randrw_1k 22
> fio_mmap_randrw_4k_halfbusy 35
> fio_mmap_sync_read_4k 0
> fio_mmap_sync_read_64k -1
> fio_mmap_sync_read_128k -1
> fio_mmap_sync_read_rr_64k 5
> fio_mmap_sync_read_rr_4k 3
>
> The fio_mmap_randread_1k has regression against 3.2-rc7, but no
> regression against 3.2-rc6 kernel, still checking why. The fiops has
> improvement for read/write mixed workload. CFQ is known not good for
> read/write mixed workload.

Set the slice_idle=0 and possibly increase quantum to 32 or 64 and you
should get better performance. I think practically it should become a
IOPS based scheduler with little imprecise accounting.

Thanks
Vivek


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-15 23:31    [W:0.079 / U:8.516 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site