public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
	Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
	Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cfq-iosched: rethink seeky detection for SSDs
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:25:53 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100301142553.GB8878@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1267296340-3820-3-git-send-email-czoccolo@gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 07:45:40PM +0100, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> CFQ currently applies the same logic of detecting seeky queues and
> grouping them together for rotational disks as well as SSDs.
> For SSDs, the time to complete a request doesn't depend on the
> request location, but only on the size.
> This patch therefore changes the criterion to group queues by
> request size in case of SSDs, in order to achieve better fairness.

Hi Corrado,

Can you give some numbers regarding how are you measuring fairness and
how did you decide that we achieve better fairness?

In case of SSDs with NCQ, we will not idle on any of the queues (either
sync or sync-noidle (seeky queues)). So w.r.t code, what behavior changes
if we mark a queue as seeky/non-seeky on SSD?

IOW, looking at this patch, now any queue doing IO in smaller chunks than
32K on SSD will be marked as seeky. How does that change the behavior in 
terms of fairness for the queue?
 
Thanks
Vivek

> 
> Signed-off-by: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>
> ---
>  block/cfq-iosched.c |    7 ++++++-
>  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/cfq-iosched.c b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> index 806d30b..f27e535 100644
> --- a/block/cfq-iosched.c
> +++ b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ static const int cfq_hist_divisor = 4;
>  #define CFQ_SERVICE_SHIFT       12
>  
>  #define CFQQ_SEEK_THR		(sector_t)(8 * 100)
> +#define CFQQ_SECT_THR_NONROT	(sector_t)(2 * 32)
>  #define CFQQ_SEEKY(cfqq)	(hweight32(cfqq->seek_history) > 32/8)
>  
>  #define RQ_CIC(rq)		\
> @@ -2958,6 +2959,7 @@ cfq_update_io_seektime(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *cfqq,
>  		       struct request *rq)
>  {
>  	sector_t sdist = 0;
> +	sector_t n_sec = blk_rq_sectors(rq);
>  	if (cfqq->last_request_pos) {
>  		if (cfqq->last_request_pos < blk_rq_pos(rq))
>  			sdist = blk_rq_pos(rq) - cfqq->last_request_pos;
> @@ -2966,7 +2968,10 @@ cfq_update_io_seektime(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *cfqq,
>  	}
>  
>  	cfqq->seek_history <<= 1;
> -	cfqq->seek_history |= (sdist > CFQQ_SEEK_THR);
> +	if (blk_queue_nonrot(cfqd->queue))
> +		cfqq->seek_history |= (n_sec < CFQQ_SECT_THR_NONROT);
> +	else
> +		cfqq->seek_history |= (sdist > CFQQ_SEEK_THR);
>  }
>  
>  /*
> -- 
> 1.6.4.4

  reply	other threads:[~2010-03-01 14:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1267296340-3820-1-git-send-email-czoccolo@gmail.com>
2010-02-27 18:45 ` [PATCH 1/2] cfq-iosched: rework seeky detection Corrado Zoccolo
2010-02-27 18:45   ` [PATCH 2/2] cfq-iosched: rethink seeky detection for SSDs Corrado Zoccolo
2010-03-01 14:25     ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2010-03-03 19:47       ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-03-03 21:21         ` Vivek Goyal
2010-03-03 23:28         ` Vivek Goyal
2010-03-04 20:34           ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-03-04 22:27             ` Vivek Goyal
2010-03-05 22:31               ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-03-08 14:08                 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-02-28 18:41 ` [RFC, PATCH 0/2] Reworking seeky detection for 2.6.34 Jens Axboe
2010-03-01 16:35 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-03-01 19:45   ` Vivek Goyal
2010-03-01 23:01   ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-03-03 22:39     ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-03-03 23:11       ` 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=20100301142553.GB8878@redhat.com \
    --to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=czoccolo@gmail.com \
    --cc=guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
    /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