From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3]CFQ: add think time check for service tree
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:10:41 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110705141041.GB24348@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1309757794.15392.238.camel@sli10-conroe>
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 01:36:34PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> Subject: CFQ: add think time check for service tree
>
> Currently when the last queue of a service tree has no request, we don't
> expire the queue to hope request from the service tree comes soon, so the
> service tree doesn't miss its share. But if the think time is big, the
> assumption isn't correct and we just waste bandwidth. In such case, we
> don't do idle.
>
> [global]
> runtime=10
> direct=1
>
> [test1]
> rw=randread
> ioengine=libaio
> size=500m
> directory=/mnt
> filename=file1
> thinktime=9000
>
> [test2]
> rw=read
> ioengine=libaio
> size=1G
> directory=/mnt
> filename=file2
>
> patched base
> test1 41k/s 33k/s
> test2 15868k/s 15789k/s
> total 15902k/s 15817k/s
>
> A slightly better
>
> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
>
> ---
> block/cfq-iosched.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux/block/cfq-iosched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/block/cfq-iosched.c 2011-07-01 13:43:34.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux/block/cfq-iosched.c 2011-07-01 13:45:24.000000000 +0800
> @@ -74,6 +74,8 @@ static DEFINE_IDA(cic_index_ida);
>
> #define sample_valid(samples) ((samples) > 80)
> #define rb_entry_cfqg(node) rb_entry((node), struct cfq_group, rb_node)
> +#define cfq_io_thinktime_big(ttime, slice) \
> + (sample_valid((ttime).ttime_samples) && (ttime).ttime_mean > (slice))
>
I think instead of a macro, a inline function to check this will be better.
Also you don't have to pass slice_idle value as parameter as funciton
can directly access it from cfqd.
> /*
> * Most of our rbtree usage is for sorting with min extraction, so
> @@ -87,9 +89,10 @@ struct cfq_rb_root {
> unsigned count;
> unsigned total_weight;
> u64 min_vdisktime;
> + struct cfq_ttime ttime;
> };
> -#define CFQ_RB_ROOT (struct cfq_rb_root) { .rb = RB_ROOT, .left = NULL, \
> - .count = 0, .min_vdisktime = 0, }
> +#define CFQ_RB_ROOT (struct cfq_rb_root) { .rb = RB_ROOT, \
> + .ttime = {.last_end_request = jiffies,},}
>
> /*
> * Per process-grouping structure
> @@ -1969,7 +1972,8 @@ static bool cfq_should_idle(struct cfq_d
> * Otherwise, we do only if they are the last ones
> * in their service tree.
> */
> - if (service_tree->count == 1 && cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq))
> + if (service_tree->count == 1 && cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq) &&
> + !cfq_io_thinktime_big(service_tree->ttime, cfqd->cfq_slice_idle))
> return true;
> cfq_log_cfqq(cfqd, cfqq, "Not idling. st->count:%d",
> service_tree->count);
> @@ -3231,8 +3235,16 @@ static void
> cfq_update_io_thinktime(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *cfqq,
> struct cfq_io_context *cic)
> {
> - if (cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq))
> + struct cfq_rb_root *service_tree;
> + struct cfq_group *cfqg = cfqq->cfqg;
> +
> + if (cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq)) {
> __cfq_update_io_thinktime(&cic->ttime, cfqd->cfq_slice_idle);
> + service_tree = service_tree_for(cfqg, cfqq_prio(cfqq),
> + cfqq_type(cfqq));
I think by now cfqq is already on the service tree and cfqq->service_tree
should be set. So we should be able to just acess that instead of calling
service_tree_for().
I have noticed that cfqq might be queued on one service tree but we can
change the idling on queue and cfqq_type() can return a different value
and different service tree. So trying to avoid use of service_tree_for()
when cfqq is already on a service tree should be good.
> + __cfq_update_io_thinktime(&service_tree->ttime,
> + cfqd->cfq_slice_idle);
> + }
> }
>
> static void
> @@ -3570,7 +3582,13 @@ static void cfq_completed_request(struct
> cfqd->rq_in_flight[cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq)]--;
>
> if (sync) {
> + struct cfq_rb_root *service_tree;
> +
> RQ_CIC(rq)->ttime.last_end_request = now;
> +
> + service_tree = service_tree_for(cfqq->cfqg, cfqq_prio(cfqq),
> + cfqq_type(cfqq));
Ditto.
> + service_tree->ttime.last_end_request = now;
> if (!time_after(rq->start_time + cfqd->cfq_fifo_expire[1], now))
> cfqd->last_delayed_sync = now;
> }
>
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-05 14:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-04 5:36 [PATCH 2/3]CFQ: add think time check for service tree Shaohua Li
2011-07-05 14:10 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2011-07-06 1:57 ` Shaohua Li
2011-07-06 15:01 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-07-07 6:17 ` Shaohua Li
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-07-12 1:37 Shaohua Li
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=20110705141041.GB24348@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=jaxboe@fusionio.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