All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/4] cfq: implement merging and breaking up of cfq_queues
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:40:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091026114011.GD10727@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4e5e476b0910241308s4a14fb69jbc6f8d35eb0ab78@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Oct 24 2009, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
> this series looks good.
> I like in particular the fact that you move seekiness detection in the cfqq.
> This can help with processes that issue sequential reads and seeky
> writes, or vice versa.
> Probably, also the think time could be made per-cfqq, so that the
> decision whether we should idle for a given cfqq is more precise.
> 
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is a follow-up patch to the original close cooperator support for
> > CFQ.  The problem is that some programs (NFSd, dump(8), iscsi target
> > mode driver, qemu) interleave sequential I/Os between multiple threads
> > or processes.  The result is that there are large delays due to CFQ's
> > idling logic that leads to very low throughput.
> 
> You identified the problem in the idling logic, that reduces the
> throughput in this particular scenario, in which various threads or
> processes issue (in random order) the I/O requests with different I/O
> contexts on behalf of a single entity.
> In this case, any idling between those threads is detrimental.
> Ideally, such cases should be already spotted, since think time should
> be high for such processes, so I wonder if this indicates a problem in
> the current think time logic.

That isn't necessarily true, it may just as well be that there's very
little think time (don't see the connection here). A test case to
demonstrate this would be a number of processes/threads splitting a
sequential read of a file between them.

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2009-10-26 11:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-10-23 21:14 [PATCH/RFC 0/4] cfq: implement merging and breaking up of cfq_queues Jeff Moyer
2009-10-23 21:14 ` [PATCH 1/4] cfq: calculate the seek_mean per cfq_queue not per cfq_io_context Jeff Moyer
2009-10-23 21:14 ` [PATCH 2/4] cfq: merge cooperating cfq_queues Jeff Moyer
2009-10-23 21:14 ` [PATCH 3/4] cfq: change the meaning of the cfqq_coop flag Jeff Moyer
2009-10-23 21:14 ` [PATCH 4/4] cfq: break apart merged cfqqs if they stop cooperating Jeff Moyer
2009-10-24 20:08 ` [PATCH/RFC 0/4] cfq: implement merging and breaking up of cfq_queues Corrado Zoccolo
2009-10-26 11:40   ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2009-10-26 13:20     ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-10-26 13:28       ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-26 13:31   ` Jeff Moyer
2009-10-26 13:34     ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-26 15:01       ` 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=20091026114011.GD10727@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.