Re: CFQ v2 high cpu load fix(?)

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12 2004, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
>>Ronny V. Vindenes wrote:
>>
>>>CFQ v2 is much better in a lot of cases, but certain situations trigger
>>>a cpu load so high it starves the rest of the system thus completely
>>>ruining the interactive experience. While casually looking at the
>>>problem, I stumbled upon a patch by Arjan van de Ven sent to lkml on
>>>sept. 1 (Subject: block fixes). Part of it is already included in the
>>>CFQ v2 patches and after applying the rest[1] I'm no longer able to
>>>trigger the problem.
>>>
>>>[1] Patch attached against 2.6.9-rc4-ck1 but applies to rc4-mm1 with
>>>some minor fuzz.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>--- patches/linux-2.6.9-rc4-ck1/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c	2004-10-12 
>>>12:25:09.798003278 +0200
>>>+++ linux-2.6.9-rc4-ck1/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c	2004-10-12 
>>>12:25:42.959479479 +0200
>>>@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@
>>>		nr = q->nr_requests;
>>>	q->nr_congestion_on = nr;
>>>
>>>-	nr = q->nr_requests - (q->nr_requests / 8) - 1;
>>>+	nr = q->nr_requests - (q->nr_requests / 8) - (q->nr_requests/16)- 1;
>>>	if (nr < 1)
>>>		nr = 1;
>>>	q->nr_congestion_off = nr;
>>
>>
>>I thought this first hunk looked like a good idea when Arjan sent the
>>patch. Can you check if it alone helps your problem?
> 
> 
> Yeah agree, it's a good idea to leave a bit of air between congestion on
> and off. Fully explains the cfq v2 excessive sys time for some
> workloads, which is extra nice.
> 

Cool. Can you queue up a patch for when -mm opens again, or shall I?
I can't imagine it should cause any problems but a bit of testing
would be wise.

> 
>>The second hunk should be basically a noop.
> 
> 
> I don't see what it is trying to achieve, I like the current code
> better.
> 

I think Arjan may have just misread the code a little bit.