From: mingo@kernel.org (Ingo Molnar)
Subject: RFC: Allow block drivers to poll for I/O instead of sleeping
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:18:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130624081838.GB21768@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130624071544.GR9422@kernel.dk>
* Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> - With the former note, the app either needs to opt in (and hence
> willingly sacrifice CPU cycles of its scheduling slice) or it needs to
> be nicer in when it gives up and goes back to irq driven IO.
The scheduler could look at sleep latency averages of the task in question
- we measure that already in most cases.
If the 'average sleep latency' is below a certain threshold, the
scheduler, if it sees that the CPU is about to go idle, could delay doing
the context switch and do "light idle-polling", for say twice the length
of the expected sleep latency - assuming the CPU is otherwise idle -
before it really schedules away the task and the CPU goes idle.
This would still require an IRQ and a wakeup to be taken, but would avoid
the context switch.
Yet I have an ungood feeling about depending on actual latency values so
explicitly. There will have to be a cutoff value, and if a workload is
just below or just above that threshold then behavior will change
markedly. Such schemes rarely worked out nicely in the past. [Might still
be worth trying it.]
Couldn't the block device driver itself estimate the expected latency of
IO completion and simply poll if that's expected to be very short [such as
there's only a single outstanding IO to a RAM backed device]? IO drivers
doing some polling and waiting in the microseconds range isnt overly
controversial. I'd even do that if the CPU is busy otherwise: the task
should see a proportional slowdown as load increases, with no change in IO
queueing behavior.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-24 8:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-20 20:17 RFC: Allow block drivers to poll for I/O instead of sleeping Matthew Wilcox
2013-06-23 10:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-06-23 18:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-06-24 7:17 ` Jens Axboe
2013-06-25 0:11 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-06-25 3:07 ` Matthew Wilcox
2013-06-25 13:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-06-25 14:57 ` Jens Axboe
2013-06-24 8:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-06-25 3:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2013-06-25 7:07 ` Bart Van Assche
2013-06-25 15:00 ` Jens Axboe
2013-06-27 18:10 ` Rik van Riel
2013-06-23 22:14 ` David Ahern
2013-06-24 8:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-06-24 7:15 ` Jens Axboe
2013-06-24 8:18 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-06-25 3:01 ` Matthew Wilcox
2013-06-25 14:55 ` Jens Axboe
2013-06-27 18:42 ` Rik van Riel
2013-07-04 1:13 ` 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=20130624081838.GB21768@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@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 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).