From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>
Cc: "M. Edward Borasky" <znmeb@cesmail.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Negative "ios_in_flight" in the 2.4 kernel
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:08:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041223080806.GG12463@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041222155816.GF3088@logos.cnet>
On Wed, Dec 22 2004, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 07:19:42AM -0800, M. Edward Borasky wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 12:16 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >
> > > > Question: wouldn't a simple refusal to decrement ios_in_flight in
> > > > "down_ios" if it's zero fix this, or am I missing something?
> > >
> > > That would paper over the real bug, but it will work for you.
> > What is the "real bug", then? What will "work for me" is accurate disk
> > usage tick counts. The intent of these statistics is something known as
> > Operational Analysis of Queueing Networks.
> >
> > The "requirement" is that the operations on each device be accurately
> > counted, and the "wall clock" time spent *waiting* for requests and the
> > time spent *servicing* requests be accurately accumulated for each
> > device. The sector count is a bonus.
> >
> > >From these raw counters, one can, and iostat does, compute throughput,
> > utilization, average service time, average wait time and average queue
> > length. An excellent and highly readable reference for the math involved
> > can be found at
> >
> > http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/lazowska/qsp/Images/Chap_03.pdf
> >
> > That is the intent behind these counters, and what will "work for me" is
> > a kernel that captures the raw counters correctly. If forcing
> > ios_in_flight to be non-negative is done at the expense of losing or
> > gaining ticks in the wait or service time accumulators, then it will not
> > work for me.
>
> Well something is deaccounting uncorrectly (doh), probably the disk/partition
> accounting logic is doing wrong in some condition, Jens?
>
> void req_merged_io(struct request *req)
> {
> struct hd_struct *hd1, *hd2;
>
> locate_hd_struct(req, &hd1, &hd2);
> if (hd1)
> down_ios(hd1);
> if (hd2)
> down_ios(hd2);
> }
>
> void req_finished_io(struct request *req)
> {
> struct hd_struct *hd1, *hd2;
>
> locate_hd_struct(req, &hd1, &hd2);
> if (hd1)
> account_io_end(hd1, req);
> if (hd2)
> account_io_end(hd2, req);
> }
>
> We could eliminate that possibility if you ran your tests with a single
> non-partitioned disk, but thats just a guess.
It would be nice to know if this was a vanilla kernel or patched in some
way. The only recent bug in this area I remember was a bad merge in the
SUSE tree with the io_request_lock scaling patch.
(and don't trim the cc list when replying, at least not if you want
people to see your message)
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-12-23 8:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-12-22 5:05 Negative "ios_in_flight" in the 2.4 kernel M. Edward Borasky
2004-12-22 11:16 ` Jens Axboe
2004-12-22 15:19 ` M. Edward Borasky
2004-12-22 15:58 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-12-23 8:08 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2004-12-23 15:30 ` M. Edward Borasky
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=20041223080806.GG12463@suse.de \
--to=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com \
--cc=znmeb@cesmail.net \
/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