public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/4] cfq: implement merging and breaking up of cfq_queues
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:40:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091026114011.GD10727@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4e5e476b0910241308s4a14fb69jbc6f8d35eb0ab78@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Oct 24 2009, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
> this series looks good.
> I like in particular the fact that you move seekiness detection in the cfqq.
> This can help with processes that issue sequential reads and seeky
> writes, or vice versa.
> Probably, also the think time could be made per-cfqq, so that the
> decision whether we should idle for a given cfqq is more precise.
> 
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is a follow-up patch to the original close cooperator support for
> > CFQ.  The problem is that some programs (NFSd, dump(8), iscsi target
> > mode driver, qemu) interleave sequential I/Os between multiple threads
> > or processes.  The result is that there are large delays due to CFQ's
> > idling logic that leads to very low throughput.
> 
> You identified the problem in the idling logic, that reduces the
> throughput in this particular scenario, in which various threads or
> processes issue (in random order) the I/O requests with different I/O
> contexts on behalf of a single entity.
> In this case, any idling between those threads is detrimental.
> Ideally, such cases should be already spotted, since think time should
> be high for such processes, so I wonder if this indicates a problem in
> the current think time logic.

That isn't necessarily true, it may just as well be that there's very
little think time (don't see the connection here). A test case to
demonstrate this would be a number of processes/threads splitting a
sequential read of a file between them.

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2009-10-26 11:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-10-23 21:14 [PATCH/RFC 0/4] cfq: implement merging and breaking up of cfq_queues Jeff Moyer
2009-10-23 21:14 ` [PATCH 1/4] cfq: calculate the seek_mean per cfq_queue not per cfq_io_context Jeff Moyer
2009-10-23 21:14 ` [PATCH 2/4] cfq: merge cooperating cfq_queues Jeff Moyer
2009-10-23 21:14 ` [PATCH 3/4] cfq: change the meaning of the cfqq_coop flag Jeff Moyer
2009-10-23 21:14 ` [PATCH 4/4] cfq: break apart merged cfqqs if they stop cooperating Jeff Moyer
2009-10-24 20:08 ` [PATCH/RFC 0/4] cfq: implement merging and breaking up of cfq_queues Corrado Zoccolo
2009-10-26 11:40   ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2009-10-26 13:20     ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-10-26 13:28       ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-26 13:31   ` Jeff Moyer
2009-10-26 13:34     ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-26 15:01       ` 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=20091026114011.GD10727@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