Linux Device Mapper development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>, dm-devel@redhat.com
Cc: shivakrishna.merla@netapp.com, jmoyer@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] dm: delay running the queue slightly during request completion
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 08:51:20 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54ECAC08.7040603@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1424796250-38553-5-git-send-email-snitzer@redhat.com>

On 02/24/2015 08:44 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On really fast storage it can be beneficial to delay running the
> request_queue to allow the elevator more opportunity to merge requests.
>
> Otherwise, it has been observed that requests are being sent to
> q->request_fn much quicker than is ideal on IOPS-bound backends.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
> ---
>   drivers/md/dm.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/dm.c b/drivers/md/dm.c
> index fc92899..92091e0 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/dm.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/dm.c
> @@ -1034,7 +1034,7 @@ static void rq_completed(struct mapped_device *md, int rw, bool run_queue)
>   	 * queue lock again.
>   	 */
>   	if (run_queue)
> -		blk_run_queue_async(md->queue);
> +		blk_delay_queue(md->queue, HZ / 10);

This looks dangerous... How will this impact sync IO? Heuristics like 
this will always come back and bite you in the ass.

A slightly more friendly heuristic might be to delay running the queue, 
if you still have pending IO. That would give you a more sawtooth like 
queue depth management, so it would potentially slow down a bit, but the 
upside would be more efficient merging since it would allow some 
requests so sit a little bit before being dispatched.

-- 
Jens Axboe

  reply	other threads:[~2015-02-24 16:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-02-24 16:44 [PATCH 0/4] dm: simplify request-based DM a bit and an RFC-like perf tweak Mike Snitzer
2015-02-24 16:44 ` [PATCH 1/4] dm: remove unnecessary wrapper around blk_lld_busy Mike Snitzer
2015-02-24 16:44 ` [PATCH 2/4] dm: remove request-based DM queue's lld_busy_fn hook Mike Snitzer
2015-02-24 16:44 ` [PATCH 3/4] dm: remove request-based logic from make_request_fn wrapper Mike Snitzer
2015-02-24 16:44 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] dm: delay running the queue slightly during request completion Mike Snitzer
2015-02-24 16:51   ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2015-02-24 17:22     ` [RFC PATCH 4/4 v2] " Mike Snitzer
2015-02-24 17:52       ` Jens Axboe
2015-02-24 18:12         ` Mike Snitzer
2015-02-24 18:16           ` Jens Axboe
2015-02-24 18:32             ` Mike Snitzer
2015-02-25  0:56               ` awful request merge results while simulating high IOPS multipath Mike Snitzer
2015-02-25  4:14                 ` Keith Busch
2015-02-25 15:11                   ` Jens Axboe
2015-02-25 18:17                     ` Busch, Keith
2015-02-25 22:10                       ` Mike Snitzer
2015-02-25 23:57                         ` Keith Busch
2015-02-26  0:11                           ` Mike Snitzer
2015-02-26  0:28                             ` Keith Busch
2015-02-25  4:38                 ` FIXED! [was: awful request merge results while simulating high IOPS] multipath Mike Snitzer
2015-02-25  4:41                   ` Mike Snitzer

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=54ECAC08.7040603@kernel.dk \
    --to=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
    --cc=shivakrishna.merla@netapp.com \
    --cc=snitzer@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox