linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Cc: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>,
	Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] cfq: adapt slice to number of processes doing I/O
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 15:07:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090903130731.GE18599@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <x49ljkwxjvr.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>

On Thu, Sep 03 2009, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > When the number of processes performing I/O concurrently increases,  a
> > fixed time slice per process will cause large latencies.
> > In the patch, if there are more than 3 processes performing concurrent
> > I/O, we scale the time slice down proportionally.
> > To safeguard sequential bandwidth, we impose a minimum time slice,
> > computed from cfq_slice_idle (the idea is that cfq_slice_idle
> > approximates the cost for a seek).
> >
> > I performed two tests, on a rotational disk:
> > * 32 concurrent processes performing random reads
> > ** the bandwidth is improved from 466KB/s to 477KB/s
> > ** the maximum latency is reduced from 7.667s to 1.728
> > * 32 concurrent processes performing sequential reads
> > ** the bandwidth is reduced from 28093KB/s to 24393KB/s
> > ** the maximum latency is reduced from 3.781s to 1.115s
> >
> > I expect numbers to be even better on SSDs, where the penalty to
> > disrupt sequential read is much less.
> 
> Interesting approach.  I'm not sure what the benefits will be on SSDs,
> as the idling logic is disabled for them (when nonrot is set and they
> support ncq).  See cfq_arm_slice_timer.

Also, the problem with scaling the slice a lot is that throughput has a
tendency to fall off a cliff at some point. Have you tried benchmarking
buffered writes with reads?

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2009-09-03 13:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-09-03 11:07 [RFC] cfq: adapt slice to number of processes doing I/O Corrado Zoccolo
2009-09-03 13:01 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-09-03 13:07   ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2009-09-03 16:36     ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-09-05 16:16       ` Jens Axboe
2009-09-07 14:57         ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-09-03 15:38   ` Jeff Moyer
2009-09-03 16:47     ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-09-03 17:16       ` Jeff Moyer
2009-09-04  7:22         ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-09-03 16:26   ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-09-03 18:29     ` Jeff Moyer

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=20090903130731.GE18599@kernel.dk \
    --to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=czoccolo@gmail.com \
    --cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
    --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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).