From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: Takashi Ikebe <ikebe.takashi@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: andrea@suse.de, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Real-time problem due to IO congestion.
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:24:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050610062452.GK5140@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42A91D36.8090506@lab.ntt.co.jp>
On Fri, Jun 10 2005, Takashi Ikebe wrote:
> Hello,
> I have been encountering big real-time problem due to IO congestion, and
> I want some advices.
>
> -The problem description-
> There are 2 type processes in test environment.
> 1. The real-time needed process (run on with high static priority)
> The process wake up every 10ms, and wake up, write some log (the
> test case is current CPU clock via tsc) to the file.
>
> 2. The process which make IO load
> The process have large memory size, and kill the process with dumping.
> The process's memory area exceeds 70% of whole physical
> RAM.(Actually 1.5GB memory area while whole RAM is 2GB)
>
> Whenever during dumping, the real-time needed process sometimes stop for
> long time during write system call. (sometimes exceeds 1000ms)
> I tested every IO scheduler but the same problem occurs.
> I also seek this problem into the code, and find that the stops are
> mainly occurring on blk_congestion_wait/get_request/get_request_wait
> functions located on drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c.
>
> -My assumption-
> The design of IO(read/write) queue and queuing is not well match to
> real-time needed processes.
> If there are many IO requests by low priority processes already, then
> the IO request by high priority process should wait until queue goes
> clean, and this cause some kind of priority inversions.
>
> -My suggestion-
> Add the new IO scheduler or change current IO scheduler to reflect
> process's priority on queuing.
>
> I don't know my assumption and suggestion are correct and you like,
> would you give me some advices?
This basically needs io priorities to work, so that request allocation
is prioritized as well. I didn't actually add request allocation groups
in the cfq-ts posted with priority support, however I have some patches
from years ago that did so. I'll see if I can find the time to brush
those off.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-06-10 6:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-06-10 4:55 Real-time problem due to IO congestion Takashi Ikebe
2005-06-10 6:24 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2005-06-10 7:49 ` Takashi Ikebe
2005-06-10 18:26 ` Lee Revell
2005-06-10 6:42 ` Andrew Morton
2005-06-10 7:13 ` Takashi Ikebe
2005-06-10 7:21 ` Jens Axboe
2005-06-10 20:25 ` Helge Hafting
2005-06-13 1:46 ` Takashi Ikebe
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=20050610062452.GK5140@suse.de \
--to=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=ikebe.takashi@lab.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.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