public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
To: Randy Appleton <rappleto@nmu.edu>
Cc: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Unneeded Code Found??
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:54:08 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <400B7100.7090600@cyberone.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <400B2BCF.7090003@nmu.edu>



Randy Appleton wrote:

> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>> Randy Appleton wrote:
>>
>>> I think I have found some useless code in the Linux kernel
>>> in the block request functions.
>>>                                                                                         
>>>
>>> I have modified the __make_request function in ll_rw_blk.c.
>>> Now every request for a block off the hard drive is logged.
>>>                                                                                         
>>>
>>> The function __make_request has code to attempt to merge the current
>>> block request with some contigious existing request for better
>>> performance. This merge function keeps a one-entry cache pointing to 
>>> the
>>> last block request made.  An attempt is made to merge the current
>>> request with the last request, and if that is not possible then
>>> a search of the whole queue is done, looking at merger possibililites.
>>>                                                                                         
>>>
>>> Looking at the data from my logs, I notice that over 50% of all 
>>> requests
>>> can be merged.  However, a merge only ever happens between the
>>> current request and the previous one.  It never happens between the
>>> current request and any other request that might be in the queue (for
>>> more than 50,000 requests examined).
>>>                                                                                         
>>>
>>> This is true for several test runs, including "daily usage" and doing
>>> two kernel compiles at the same time.  I have only tested on a
>>> single-CPU machine.
>>>                                                                                         
>>>
>>> I wonder if the code (and CPU time) used to search the entire request
>>> queue is actually useful.  Would this be a reasonable candidate for 
>>> code
>>> elimination?
>>
>>
>>
>> If you never get a hit, it means either (a) your test load actually 
>> doesn't have one, or (b) the code isn't correctly finding them.
>
>
>
> It might be buggy code on my part, but it looks pretty solid to me.   
> I'd be happy to show anyone interested.
> My load ought to find such a merge, if they happen with any freqency 
> at all.  Compiling two kernels
> at the same time and "general running" are my two current loads.  The 
> disk queue gets to over 70
> entries, which is rather high for a personal workstation, and I'm 
> searching tens of thousands to accesses
> in total.
>
> Does anyone know that this code is actualy useful?  Has anyone ever 
> seen it actually do a merge of consecutive
> data accesses for requests that were not issued themselves consequtively?
>

Yes it gets used.

I think its a lot more common with direct io and when you have lots of
processes.



  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-01-19  5:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-01-09 23:28 Unneeded Code Found?? Randy Appleton
2004-01-15 16:02 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-01-19  0:58   ` Randy Appleton
2004-01-19  0:30     ` Mike Fedyk
2004-01-19  5:54     ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2004-01-23 22:23       ` Randy Appleton
2004-01-24  0:00         ` Nick Piggin
2004-01-25 22:36           ` Randy Appleton
2004-01-23 22:10 ` Jens Axboe

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=400B7100.7090600@cyberone.com.au \
    --to=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
    --cc=davidsen@tmr.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rappleto@nmu.edu \
    /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