From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"jaxboe@fusionio.com" <jaxboe@fusionio.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
"khlebnikov@openvz.org" <khlebnikov@openvz.org>,
"jmoyer@redhat.com" <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] block: Fix fsync slowness with CFQ cgroups
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:04:57 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110628130457.GA17552@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1309226634.15392.197.camel@sli10-conroe>
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:03:54AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
[..]
> > > > Any feedback on how to solve this issue is appreciated.
> > > Hi Vivek,
> > > can we introduce a group think time check in cfq? say in a group the
> > > last queue is backed for the group and the queue is a non-idle queue, if
> > > the group think time is big, we don't allow the group idle and preempt
> > > could happen. The fsync thread is a non-idle queue with Corrado's patch,
> > > this allows fast group switch.
> >
> > In this case regular queue idle is hitting and not group idle. So some
> > kind of think time stats probably might be useful for group idle check
> > but not necessarily for queue idle.
> I thought your problem is group idle issue. fsync uses WRITE_SYNC, which
> will make the queue be sync-non-idle because REQ_NOIDLE is set. This is
> exactly what Corrado's patch for. a fsync queue itself isn't idle unless
> it's the last queue in a group. Am I missing anything?
We idle on last queue on sync-noidle tree. So we idle on fysnc queue as
it is last queue on sync-noidle tree. That's how we provide protection
to all sync-noidle queues against sync-idle queues. Instead of idling
on individual quues we do idling in group and that is on service tree.
>
> > Secondly, for this case think time will change. If you stop idling on
> > fsync and jbd threads, both will be dispatching IOs fast and both will
> > have small thinktime. We will think that thinktime is small so we
> > will enable idle. Then there think time will increase as both will
> > get blocked behind each other. And then we will removing idling. So
> > looks like we will be oscillating between enabling and disabling
> > think time.
> That is possible, the think time check (even for queues) always has such
> issue. Not sure how severe the issue is. Assume jbd will dispatch
> several requests and this will make fsync thread think time big.
>
> > If we don't allow idling on sync-no-idle queues, then basic CFQ will
> > be broken.
> Hmm, CFQ only allows idling on sync queues, sync-no-idle queue isn't
> allowed idling.
See above.
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-28 13:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-27 20:17 [RFC PATCH 0/3] block: Fix fsync slowness with CFQ cgroups Vivek Goyal
2011-06-27 20:17 ` [PATCH 1/3] block: A new interface for specifying IO dependencing among tasks Vivek Goyal
2011-06-27 20:17 ` [PATCH 2/3] ext4: Explicitly specify fsync dependency on journaling thread Vivek Goyal
2011-06-27 20:17 ` [PATCH 3/3] ext3: " Vivek Goyal
2011-06-28 1:18 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] block: Fix fsync slowness with CFQ cgroups Shaohua Li
2011-06-28 1:40 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-06-28 2:03 ` Shaohua Li
2011-06-28 13:04 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2011-06-29 1:04 ` Shaohua Li
2011-06-29 1:29 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-06-30 0:29 ` Shaohua Li
2011-06-28 2:47 ` Dave Chinner
2011-06-28 13:35 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-06-28 11:00 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2011-06-28 13:45 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-06-28 14:42 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2011-06-28 14:47 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-06-28 21:20 ` Vivek Goyal
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=20110628130457.GA17552@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=khlebnikov@openvz.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).