All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Cc: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>,
	Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] cfq: adapt slice to number of processes doing I/O
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 15:07:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090903130731.GE18599@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <x49ljkwxjvr.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>

On Thu, Sep 03 2009, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > When the number of processes performing I/O concurrently increases,  a
> > fixed time slice per process will cause large latencies.
> > In the patch, if there are more than 3 processes performing concurrent
> > I/O, we scale the time slice down proportionally.
> > To safeguard sequential bandwidth, we impose a minimum time slice,
> > computed from cfq_slice_idle (the idea is that cfq_slice_idle
> > approximates the cost for a seek).
> >
> > I performed two tests, on a rotational disk:
> > * 32 concurrent processes performing random reads
> > ** the bandwidth is improved from 466KB/s to 477KB/s
> > ** the maximum latency is reduced from 7.667s to 1.728
> > * 32 concurrent processes performing sequential reads
> > ** the bandwidth is reduced from 28093KB/s to 24393KB/s
> > ** the maximum latency is reduced from 3.781s to 1.115s
> >
> > I expect numbers to be even better on SSDs, where the penalty to
> > disrupt sequential read is much less.
> 
> Interesting approach.  I'm not sure what the benefits will be on SSDs,
> as the idling logic is disabled for them (when nonrot is set and they
> support ncq).  See cfq_arm_slice_timer.

Also, the problem with scaling the slice a lot is that throughput has a
tendency to fall off a cliff at some point. Have you tried benchmarking
buffered writes with reads?

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2009-09-03 13:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-09-03 11:07 [RFC] cfq: adapt slice to number of processes doing I/O Corrado Zoccolo
2009-09-03 13:01 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-09-03 13:07   ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2009-09-03 16:36     ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-09-05 16:16       ` Jens Axboe
2009-09-07 14:57         ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-09-03 15:38   ` Jeff Moyer
2009-09-03 16:47     ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-09-03 17:16       ` Jeff Moyer
2009-09-04  7:22         ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-09-03 16:26   ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-09-03 18:29     ` Jeff Moyer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090903130731.GE18599@kernel.dk \
    --to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=czoccolo@gmail.com \
    --cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.