From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3]CFQ: add think time check for service tree
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:10:41 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110705141041.GB24348@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1309757794.15392.238.camel@sli10-conroe>
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 01:36:34PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> Subject: CFQ: add think time check for service tree
>
> Currently when the last queue of a service tree has no request, we don't
> expire the queue to hope request from the service tree comes soon, so the
> service tree doesn't miss its share. But if the think time is big, the
> assumption isn't correct and we just waste bandwidth. In such case, we
> don't do idle.
>
> [global]
> runtime=10
> direct=1
>
> [test1]
> rw=randread
> ioengine=libaio
> size=500m
> directory=/mnt
> filename=file1
> thinktime=9000
>
> [test2]
> rw=read
> ioengine=libaio
> size=1G
> directory=/mnt
> filename=file2
>
> patched base
> test1 41k/s 33k/s
> test2 15868k/s 15789k/s
> total 15902k/s 15817k/s
>
> A slightly better
>
> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
>
> ---
> block/cfq-iosched.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux/block/cfq-iosched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/block/cfq-iosched.c 2011-07-01 13:43:34.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux/block/cfq-iosched.c 2011-07-01 13:45:24.000000000 +0800
> @@ -74,6 +74,8 @@ static DEFINE_IDA(cic_index_ida);
>
> #define sample_valid(samples) ((samples) > 80)
> #define rb_entry_cfqg(node) rb_entry((node), struct cfq_group, rb_node)
> +#define cfq_io_thinktime_big(ttime, slice) \
> + (sample_valid((ttime).ttime_samples) && (ttime).ttime_mean > (slice))
>
I think instead of a macro, a inline function to check this will be better.
Also you don't have to pass slice_idle value as parameter as funciton
can directly access it from cfqd.
> /*
> * Most of our rbtree usage is for sorting with min extraction, so
> @@ -87,9 +89,10 @@ struct cfq_rb_root {
> unsigned count;
> unsigned total_weight;
> u64 min_vdisktime;
> + struct cfq_ttime ttime;
> };
> -#define CFQ_RB_ROOT (struct cfq_rb_root) { .rb = RB_ROOT, .left = NULL, \
> - .count = 0, .min_vdisktime = 0, }
> +#define CFQ_RB_ROOT (struct cfq_rb_root) { .rb = RB_ROOT, \
> + .ttime = {.last_end_request = jiffies,},}
>
> /*
> * Per process-grouping structure
> @@ -1969,7 +1972,8 @@ static bool cfq_should_idle(struct cfq_d
> * Otherwise, we do only if they are the last ones
> * in their service tree.
> */
> - if (service_tree->count == 1 && cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq))
> + if (service_tree->count == 1 && cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq) &&
> + !cfq_io_thinktime_big(service_tree->ttime, cfqd->cfq_slice_idle))
> return true;
> cfq_log_cfqq(cfqd, cfqq, "Not idling. st->count:%d",
> service_tree->count);
> @@ -3231,8 +3235,16 @@ static void
> cfq_update_io_thinktime(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *cfqq,
> struct cfq_io_context *cic)
> {
> - if (cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq))
> + struct cfq_rb_root *service_tree;
> + struct cfq_group *cfqg = cfqq->cfqg;
> +
> + if (cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq)) {
> __cfq_update_io_thinktime(&cic->ttime, cfqd->cfq_slice_idle);
> + service_tree = service_tree_for(cfqg, cfqq_prio(cfqq),
> + cfqq_type(cfqq));
I think by now cfqq is already on the service tree and cfqq->service_tree
should be set. So we should be able to just acess that instead of calling
service_tree_for().
I have noticed that cfqq might be queued on one service tree but we can
change the idling on queue and cfqq_type() can return a different value
and different service tree. So trying to avoid use of service_tree_for()
when cfqq is already on a service tree should be good.
> + __cfq_update_io_thinktime(&service_tree->ttime,
> + cfqd->cfq_slice_idle);
> + }
> }
>
> static void
> @@ -3570,7 +3582,13 @@ static void cfq_completed_request(struct
> cfqd->rq_in_flight[cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq)]--;
>
> if (sync) {
> + struct cfq_rb_root *service_tree;
> +
> RQ_CIC(rq)->ttime.last_end_request = now;
> +
> + service_tree = service_tree_for(cfqq->cfqg, cfqq_prio(cfqq),
> + cfqq_type(cfqq));
Ditto.
> + service_tree->ttime.last_end_request = now;
> if (!time_after(rq->start_time + cfqd->cfq_fifo_expire[1], now))
> cfqd->last_delayed_sync = now;
> }
>
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-05 14:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-04 5:36 [PATCH 2/3]CFQ: add think time check for service tree Shaohua Li
2011-07-05 14:10 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2011-07-06 1:57 ` Shaohua Li
2011-07-06 15:01 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-07-07 6:17 ` Shaohua Li
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-07-12 1:37 Shaohua Li
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=20110705141041.GB24348@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
/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.