Linux LVM users
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
To: Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@cistron.nl>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>,
	linux-lvm@sistina.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Joe Thornber <thornber@redhat.com>
Subject: [linux-lvm] Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests
Date: Thu Feb 19 09:00:00 2004	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <403418FA.2070202@cyberone.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040219015207.GC30621@drinkel.cistron.nl>


Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 02:24:31, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I found out what causes this. It's get_request_wait().
>>>
>>>When the request queue is full, and a new request needs to be created,
>>>__make_request() blocks in get_request_wait().
>>>
>>>Another process wakes up first (pdflush / process submitting I/O itself /
>>>xfsdatad / etc) and sends the next bio's to __make_request().
>>>In the mean time some free requests have become available, and the bios
>>>are merged into a new request. Those requests are submitted to the device.
>>>
>>>Then, get_request_wait() returns but the bio is not mergeable anymore -
>>>and that results in a backwards seek, severely limiting the I/O rate.
>>>
>>>
>>The "batching" logic there should allow a process to submit
>>a number of requests even above the nr_requests limit to
>>prevent this interleave and context switching.
>>
>>Are you using tagged command queueing? What depth?
>>
>
>No, I'm not using tagged command queueing. The 3ware controller is not a
>real scsi controller, the driver just emulates one. It's a raid5 controller
>that drives SATA disks. It has an internal request queue ("can_queu")
>of 254 outstanding commands.
>

This is what I mean by tagged command queueing.

> Because that is way bigger than nr_requests
>this happens - if I set nr_requests to 512, the problem goes away. But
>that shouldn't happen ;)
>
>

What shouldn't happen?

>I'm preparing a proof-of-concept patch now, if it works and I don't wedge
>the remote machine I'm testing this on I'll post it in a few minutes.
>
>

I'm not very happy with forcing a process to sleep _after_ it
has submitted a request... but I'd be interested to see exactly
what your patch does.

By far the best option is to use appropriately sized queues.
The below patch is a start, but it unfortunately doesn't help
drivers which use private queueing implementations.

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.3/2.6.3-mm1/broken-out/scale-nr_requests.patch

      reply	other threads:[~2004-02-19  2:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-02-16  9:11 [linux-lvm] IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-16  8:30 ` [linux-lvm] " Jens Axboe
2004-02-16  9:01   ` Joe Thornber
2004-02-16 19:32   ` Kevin P. Fleming
2004-02-17  1:46   ` Kevin P. Fleming
2004-02-18 10:29   ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  8:51     ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  8:50       ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-19  9:08         ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  9:08           ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-19 10:23             ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 10:26               ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-19 15:58                 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 17:52                   ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 18:52                     ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 19:15                       ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 20:16                       ` [linux-lvm] [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests) Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 20:25                         ` [linux-lvm] " Andrew Morton
2004-02-19 20:40                           ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 21:32                             ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-23  8:41                               ` [linux-lvm] [PATCH] bdi_congestion_funp (was: Re: [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests)) Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-20  9:56                                 ` [linux-lvm] " Joe Thornber
2004-02-20  9:59                                   ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-23  8:45                                     ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-22 14:55                                       ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-20  9:57                                 ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-24 12:54                                   ` [linux-lvm] Queue congestion: passing down vs passing up [PATCH] Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 20:52                         ` [linux-lvm] Re: [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests) Nick Piggin
2004-02-19  9:11           ` [linux-lvm] Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 10:26             ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-19  8:51       ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19  9:00         ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  9:00           ` Nick Piggin [this message]

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=403418FA.2070202@cyberone.com.au \
    --to=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
    --cc=axboe@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-lvm@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-lvm@sistina.com \
    --cc=miquels@cistron.nl \
    --cc=thornber@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