From: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"vgoyal@redhat.com" <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC]block: change sort order of elv_dispatch_sort
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:01:31 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CFF3B5B.30305@fusionio.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1291794643.12777.161.camel@sli10-conroe>
On 2010-12-08 15:50, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 14:56 +0800, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 2010-12-08 13:42, Shaohua Li wrote:
>>> Change the sort order a little bit. Makes requests with sector above boundary
>>> in ascendant order, and requests with sector below boundary in descendant
>>> order. The goal is we have less disk spindle move.
>>> For example, boundary is 7, we add sector 8, 1, 9, 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 5, 11, 6
>>> In the original sort, the sorted list is:
>>> 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
>>> the spindle move is 8->12->1->6, total movement is 12*2 sectors
>>> with the new sort, the list is:
>>> 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
>>> the spindle move is 8->12->6->1, total movement is 12*1.5 sectors
>>
>> It was actually done this way on purpose, it's been a while since we
>> have done two way elevators even outside the dispatch list sorting
>> itself.
>>
>> Do you have any results to back this change up? I'd argue that
>> continuing to the end, sweeping back, and reading forwards again will be
>> faster then doing backwards reads usually.
> No, have no data, that is why this is a RFC patch. Part reason is I
> don't know when we dispatch several requests to the list. Appears driver
> only takes one request one time. What kind of test do you suggest?
Yes that is usually the case, it's mainly meant as a holding point for
dispatch, or for requeue, or for request that don't give sort ordering.
Or on io scheduler switches, for instance.
> I'm curious why the sweeping back is faster. It definitely needs more
> spindle move. is there any hardware trick here?
The idea is that while the initial seek is longer, due to drive prefetch
serving the latter half request series after the sweep is faster.
I know that classic OS books mentions this is a good method, but I don't
think that has been the case for a long time.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-08 8:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-08 5:42 [RFC]block: change sort order of elv_dispatch_sort Shaohua Li
2010-12-08 6:56 ` Jens Axboe
2010-12-08 7:50 ` Shaohua Li
2010-12-08 8:01 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2010-12-08 14:39 ` Shaohua Li
2010-12-08 14:44 ` Jens Axboe
2010-12-09 13:17 ` 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=4CFF3B5B.30305@fusionio.com \
--to=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
--cc=vgoyal@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