From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
jens.axboe@oracle.com, nauman@google.com, dpshah@google.com,
lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, mikew@google.com, fchecconi@gmail.com,
paolo.valente@unimore.it, ryov@valinux.co.jp,
fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, s-uchida@ap.jp.nec.com,
taka@valinux.co.jp, guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com,
jmoyer@redhat.com, dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, righi.andrea@gmail.com,
m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com, jbaron@redhat.com
Cc: agk@redhat.com, snitzer@redhat.com, vgoyal@redhat.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 03/20] io-controller: Charge for time slice based on average disk rate
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:37:21 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1245443858-8487-4-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1245443858-8487-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com>
o There are situations where a queue gets expired very soon and it looks
as if time slice used by that queue is zero. For example, If an async
queue dispatches a bunch of requests and queue is expired before first
request completes. Another example is where a queue is expired as soon
as first request completes and queue has no more requests (sync queues
on SSD).
o Currently we just charge 25% of slice length in such cases. This patch tries
to improve on that approximation by keeping a track of average disk rate
and charging for time by nr_sectors/disk_rate.
o This is still experimental, not very sure if it gives measurable improvement
or not.
Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
---
block/elevator-fq.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
block/elevator-fq.h | 11 ++++++
2 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/elevator-fq.c b/block/elevator-fq.c
index 9357fb0..3e956dc 100644
--- a/block/elevator-fq.c
+++ b/block/elevator-fq.c
@@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ const int elv_slice_async_rq = 2;
int elv_slice_idle = HZ / 125;
static struct kmem_cache *elv_ioq_pool;
+/* Maximum Window length for updating average disk rate */
+static int elv_rate_sampling_window = HZ / 10;
+
#define ELV_SLICE_SCALE (5)
#define ELV_HW_QUEUE_MIN (5)
#define IO_SERVICE_TREE_INIT ((struct io_service_tree) \
@@ -961,6 +964,47 @@ static void elv_ioq_update_io_thinktime(struct io_queue *ioq)
ioq->ttime_mean = (ioq->ttime_total + 128) / ioq->ttime_samples;
}
+static void elv_update_io_rate(struct elv_fq_data *efqd, struct request *rq)
+{
+ long elapsed = jiffies - efqd->rate_sampling_start;
+ unsigned long total;
+
+ /* sampling window is off */
+ if (!efqd->rate_sampling_start)
+ return;
+
+ efqd->rate_sectors_current += rq->nr_sectors;
+
+ if (efqd->rq_in_driver && (elapsed < elv_rate_sampling_window))
+ return;
+
+ efqd->rate_sectors = (7*efqd->rate_sectors +
+ 256*efqd->rate_sectors_current) / 8;
+
+ if (!elapsed) {
+ /*
+ * updating rate before a jiffy could complete. Could be a
+ * problem with fast queuing/non-queuing hardware. Should we
+ * look at higher resolution time source?
+ *
+ * In case of non-queuing hardware we will probably not try to
+ * dispatch from multiple queues and will be able to account
+ * for disk time used and will not need this approximation
+ * anyway?
+ */
+ elapsed = 1;
+ }
+
+ efqd->rate_time = (7*efqd->rate_time + 256*elapsed) / 8;
+ total = efqd->rate_sectors + (efqd->rate_time/2);
+ efqd->mean_rate = total/efqd->rate_time;
+
+ elv_log(efqd, "mean_rate=%d, t=%d s=%d", efqd->mean_rate,
+ elapsed, efqd->rate_sectors_current);
+ efqd->rate_sampling_start = 0;
+ efqd->rate_sectors_current = 0;
+}
+
/*
* Disable idle window if the process thinks too long.
* This idle flag can also be updated by io scheduler.
@@ -1252,6 +1296,34 @@ void elv_del_ioq_busy(struct elevator_queue *e, struct io_queue *ioq,
}
/*
+ * Calculate the effective disk time used by the queue based on how many
+ * sectors queue has dispatched and what is the average disk rate
+ * Returns disk time in ms.
+ */
+static inline unsigned long elv_disk_time_used(struct request_queue *q,
+ struct io_queue *ioq)
+{
+ struct elv_fq_data *efqd = &q->elevator->efqd;
+ struct io_entity *entity = &ioq->entity;
+ unsigned long jiffies_used = 0;
+
+ if (!efqd->mean_rate)
+ return entity->budget/4;
+
+ /* Charge the queue based on average disk rate */
+ jiffies_used = ioq->nr_sectors/efqd->mean_rate;
+
+ if (!jiffies_used)
+ jiffies_used = 1;
+
+ elv_log_ioq(efqd, ioq, "disk time=%ldms sect=%lu rate=%ld",
+ jiffies_to_msecs(jiffies_used),
+ ioq->nr_sectors, efqd->mean_rate);
+
+ return jiffies_used;
+}
+
+/*
* Do the accounting. Determine how much service (in terms of time slices)
* current queue used and adjust the start, finish time of queue and vtime
* of the tree accordingly.
@@ -1303,7 +1375,7 @@ void __elv_ioq_slice_expired(struct request_queue *q, struct io_queue *ioq)
* the requests to finish. But this will reduce throughput.
*/
if (!ioq->slice_end)
- slice_used = entity->budget/4;
+ slice_used = elv_disk_time_used(q, ioq);
else {
if (time_after(ioq->slice_end, jiffies)) {
slice_unused = ioq->slice_end - jiffies;
@@ -1313,7 +1385,7 @@ void __elv_ioq_slice_expired(struct request_queue *q, struct io_queue *ioq)
* completing first request. Charge 25% of
* slice.
*/
- slice_used = entity->budget/4;
+ slice_used = elv_disk_time_used(q, ioq);
} else
slice_used = entity->budget - slice_unused;
} else {
@@ -1331,6 +1403,8 @@ void __elv_ioq_slice_expired(struct request_queue *q, struct io_queue *ioq)
BUG_ON(ioq != efqd->active_queue);
elv_reset_active_ioq(efqd);
+ /* Queue is being expired. Reset number of secotrs dispatched */
+ ioq->nr_sectors = 0;
if (!ioq->nr_queued)
elv_del_ioq_busy(q->elevator, ioq, 1);
else
@@ -1664,6 +1738,7 @@ void elv_fq_dispatched_request(struct elevator_queue *e, struct request *rq)
BUG_ON(!ioq);
elv_ioq_request_dispatched(ioq);
+ ioq->nr_sectors += rq->nr_sectors;
elv_ioq_request_removed(e, rq);
elv_clear_ioq_must_dispatch(ioq);
}
@@ -1676,6 +1751,10 @@ void elv_fq_activate_rq(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
return;
efqd->rq_in_driver++;
+
+ if (!efqd->rate_sampling_start)
+ efqd->rate_sampling_start = jiffies;
+
elv_log_ioq(efqd, rq_ioq(rq), "activate rq, drv=%d",
efqd->rq_in_driver);
}
@@ -1767,6 +1846,8 @@ void elv_ioq_completed_request(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
efqd->rq_in_driver--;
ioq->dispatched--;
+ elv_update_io_rate(efqd, rq);
+
if (sync)
ioq->last_end_request = jiffies;
diff --git a/block/elevator-fq.h b/block/elevator-fq.h
index 5b6c1cc..a0acf32 100644
--- a/block/elevator-fq.h
+++ b/block/elevator-fq.h
@@ -169,6 +169,9 @@ struct io_queue {
/* Requests dispatched from this queue */
int dispatched;
+ /* Number of sectors dispatched in current dispatch round */
+ unsigned long nr_sectors;
+
/* Keep a track of think time of processes in this queue */
unsigned long last_end_request;
unsigned long ttime_total;
@@ -225,6 +228,14 @@ struct elv_fq_data {
struct work_struct unplug_work;
unsigned int elv_slice[2];
+
+ /* Fields for keeping track of average disk rate */
+ unsigned long rate_sectors; /* number of sectors finished */
+ unsigned long rate_time; /* jiffies elapsed */
+ unsigned long mean_rate; /* sectors per jiffy */
+ unsigned long long rate_sampling_start; /*sampling window start jifies*/
+ /* number of sectors finished io during current sampling window */
+ unsigned long rate_sectors_current;
};
extern int elv_slice_idle;
--
1.6.0.6
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-19 20:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-19 20:37 [RFC] IO scheduler based io controller (V5) Vivek Goyal
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 01/20] io-controller: Documentation Vivek Goyal
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 02/20] io-controller: Common flat fair queuing code in elevaotor layer Vivek Goyal
2009-06-22 8:46 ` Balbir Singh
2009-06-22 12:43 ` Fabio Checconi
2009-06-23 2:43 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-06-23 4:10 ` Fabio Checconi
2009-06-23 7:32 ` Balbir Singh
2009-06-23 13:42 ` Fabio Checconi
2009-06-23 2:05 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-06-23 2:20 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-06-30 6:40 ` Gui Jianfeng
2009-07-01 1:28 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-07-01 9:24 ` Gui Jianfeng
2009-06-19 20:37 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 04/20] io-controller: Modify cfq to make use of flat elevator fair queuing Vivek Goyal
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 05/20] io-controller: Common hierarchical fair queuing code in elevaotor layer Vivek Goyal
2009-06-29 5:27 ` [PATCH] io-controller: optimization for iog deletion when elevator exiting Gui Jianfeng
2009-06-29 14:06 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-06-30 17:14 ` Nauman Rafique
2009-07-01 1:34 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 06/20] io-controller: cfq changes to use hierarchical fair queuing code in elevaotor layer Vivek Goyal
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 07/20] io-controller: Export disk time used and nr sectors dipatched through cgroups Vivek Goyal
2009-06-23 12:10 ` Gui Jianfeng
2009-06-23 14:38 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 08/20] io-controller: idle for sometime on sync queue before expiring it Vivek Goyal
2009-06-30 7:49 ` [PATCH] io-controller: Don't expire an idle ioq if it's the only ioq in hierarchy Gui Jianfeng
2009-07-01 1:32 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-07-01 1:40 ` Gui Jianfeng
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 09/20] io-controller: Separate out queue and data Vivek Goyal
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 10/20] io-conroller: Prepare elevator layer for single queue schedulers Vivek Goyal
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 11/20] io-controller: noop changes for hierarchical fair queuing Vivek Goyal
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 12/20] io-controller: deadline " Vivek Goyal
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 13/20] io-controller: anticipatory " Vivek Goyal
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 14/20] blkio_cgroup patches from Ryo to track async bios Vivek Goyal
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 15/20] io-controller: map async requests to appropriate cgroup Vivek Goyal
2009-06-22 1:45 ` Gui Jianfeng
2009-06-22 15:39 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 16/20] io-controller: Per cgroup request descriptor support Vivek Goyal
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 17/20] io-controller: Per io group bdi congestion interface Vivek Goyal
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 18/20] io-controller: Support per cgroup per device weights and io class Vivek Goyal
2009-06-24 21:52 ` Paul Menage
2009-06-25 10:23 ` [PATCH] io-controller: do some changes of io.policy interface Gui Jianfeng
2009-06-25 12:55 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-06-26 0:27 ` Gui Jianfeng
2009-06-26 0:59 ` Gui Jianfeng
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 19/20] io-controller: Debug hierarchical IO scheduling Vivek Goyal
2009-06-19 20:37 ` [PATCH 20/20] io-controller: experimental debug patch for async queue wait before expiry Vivek Goyal
2009-06-22 7:44 ` [PATCH] io-controller: Preempt a non-rt queue if a rt ioq is present in ancestor or sibling groups Gui Jianfeng
2009-06-22 17:21 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-06-23 6:44 ` Gui Jianfeng
2009-06-23 14:02 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-06-24 9:20 ` Gui Jianfeng
2009-06-26 8:13 ` [PATCH 1/2] io-controller: Prepare a rt ioq list in efqd to keep track of busy rt ioqs Gui Jianfeng
2009-06-26 8:13 ` [PATCH 2/2] io-controller: make rt preemption happen in the whole hierarchy Gui Jianfeng
2009-06-26 12:39 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-06-21 15:21 ` [RFC] IO scheduler based io controller (V5) Balbir Singh
2009-06-22 15:30 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-06-22 15:40 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-06-22 16:02 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-06-22 16:06 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-06-22 17:08 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-06-23 6:52 ` Balbir Singh
2009-06-29 16:04 ` Vladislav Bolkhovitin
2009-06-29 17:23 ` Vivek Goyal
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-05-26 22:41 [RFC] IO scheduler based IO controller V3 Vivek Goyal
2009-05-26 22:41 ` [PATCH 03/20] io-controller: Charge for time slice based on average disk rate 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=1245443858-8487-4-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=dpshah@google.com \
--cc=fchecconi@gmail.com \
--cc=fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=jbaron@redhat.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com \
--cc=mikew@google.com \
--cc=nauman@google.com \
--cc=paolo.valente@unimore.it \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=righi.andrea@gmail.com \
--cc=ryov@valinux.co.jp \
--cc=s-uchida@ap.jp.nec.com \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=taka@valinux.co.jp \
/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