From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>,
Maxim Patlasov <maxim.patlasov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch]cfq-iosched: delete deep seeky queue idle logic
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:24:41 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110923132441.GA10289@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1316603780.2001.12.camel@shli-laptop>
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 07:16:20PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
[..]
> > Try a workload with one shallow seeky queue and one deep (16) one, on
> > a single spindle NCQ disk.
> > I think the behaviour when I submitted my patch was that both were
> > getting 100ms slice (if this is not happening, probably some
> > subsequent patch broke it).
> > If you remove idling, they will get disk time roughly in proportion
> > 16:1, i.e. pretty unfair.
> I thought you are talking about a workload with one thread depth 4, and
> the other thread depth 16. I did some tests here. In an old kernel,
> without the deep seeky idle logic, the threads have disk time in
> proportion 1:5. With it, they get almost equal disk time. SO this
> reaches your goal. In a latest kernel, w/wo the logic, there is no big
> difference (the 16 depth thread get about 5x more disk time). With the
> logic, the depth 4 thread gets equal disk time in first several slices.
> But after an idle expiration(mostly because current block plug hold
> requests in task list and didn't add them to elevator), the queue never
> gets detected as deep, because the queue dispatch request one by one.
When the plugged requests are flushed, then they will be added to elevator
and at that point of time queue should be marked as deep?
Anyway, what's wrong with the idea I suggested in other mail of expiring
a sync-noidle queue afer few reuqest dispatches so that it does not
starve other sync-noidle queues.
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-23 13:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-16 3:09 [patch]cfq-iosched: delete deep seeky queue idle logic Shaohua Li
2011-09-16 6:04 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2011-09-16 6:40 ` Shaohua Li
2011-09-16 19:25 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2011-09-21 11:16 ` Shaohua Li
2011-09-23 13:24 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2011-09-25 7:34 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2011-09-27 13:08 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-09-26 0:51 ` Shaohua Li
2011-09-27 13:11 ` Vivek Goyal
[not found] ` <CADX3swq0qURdi7VYLAVbsAmX5psPrzq-uvbqANsnLkHO0xcOMQ@mail.gmail.com>
2011-09-26 0:55 ` Shaohua Li
2011-09-27 6:07 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2011-09-27 6:33 ` Shaohua Li
2011-09-28 7:09 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2011-09-16 13:24 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-09-16 13:37 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-09-16 9:54 ` Tao Ma
2011-09-16 14:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-09-16 14:50 ` Tao Ma
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=20110923132441.GA10289@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=czoccolo@gmail.com \
--cc=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maxim.patlasov@gmail.com \
--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