From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Josh Snyder <joshs@netflix.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Josh Snyder <josh@code406.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] Track io_ticks at microsecond granularity.
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 16:50:02 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200609085002.GB270404@T590> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200609040724.448519-3-joshs@netflix.com>
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 09:07:24PM -0700, Josh Snyder wrote:
> Previously, we performed truncation of I/O issue/completion times during
> calculation of io_ticks, counting only I/Os which cross a jiffy
> boundary. The effect is a sampling of I/Os: at every boundary between
> jiffies we ask "is there an outstanding I/O" and increment a counter if
> the answer is yes. This produces results that are accurate (they don't
> systematically over- or under-count), but not precise (there is high
> variance associated with only taking 100 samples per second).
>
> This change modifies the sampling rate from 100Hz to 976562.5Hz (1
> sample per 1024 nanoseconds). I chose this sampling rate by simulating a
> workload in which I/Os are issued randomly (by a Poisson process), and
> processed in constant time: an M/D/∞ system (Kendall's notation). My
> goal was to produce a sampled utilization fraction which was correct to
> one part-per-thousand given one second of samples.
>
> The tradeoff of the higher sampling rate is increased synchronization
> overhead caused by more frequent compare-and-swap operations. The
> technique of commit 5b18b5a73760 ("block: delete part_round_stats and
> switch to less precise counting") is to allow multiple I/Os to complete
> while performing only one synchronized operation. As we are increasing
> the sample rate by a factor of 10000, we will less frequently be able to
> exercise the synchronization-free code path.
Not sure if we need so precise %util, and ~1M sampling rate may cause to run
cmpxchg() 1M/sec for each partition, which overhead might be observable.
Thanks,
Ming
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-09 8:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-09 4:07 [RFC 0/2] Increase accuracy and precision of sampled io_ticks Josh Snyder
2020-06-09 4:07 ` [RFC 1/2] Eliminate over- and under-counting of io_ticks Josh Snyder
2020-06-09 8:08 ` Ming Lei
2020-06-10 1:41 ` Hou Tao
2020-06-10 7:26 ` Josh Snyder
2020-06-09 4:07 ` [RFC 2/2] Track io_ticks at microsecond granularity Josh Snyder
2020-06-09 8:50 ` Ming Lei [this message]
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=20200609085002.GB270404@T590 \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=josh@code406.com \
--cc=joshs@netflix.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.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