From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>
Cc: "Matias Bjørling" <m@bjorling.me>,
"Sam Bradshaw (sbradshaw)" <sbradshaw@micron.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: per-cpu counters for in-flight IO accounting
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 20:16:32 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <538FD300.7010706@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140605020934.GB13953@kernel.org>
On 2014-06-04 20:09, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 02:08:46PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 06/04/2014 05:29 AM, Matias Bjørling wrote:
>>> It's in
>>>
>>> blk_io_account_start
>>> part_round_stats
>>> part_round_state_single
>>> part_in_flight
>>>
>>> I like the granularity idea.
>>
>> And similarly from blk_io_account_done() - which makes it even worse,
>> since it at both ends of the IO chain.
>
> But part_round_state_single is supposed to only call part_in_flight every
> jiffery. Maybe we need something below:
> 1. set part->stamp immediately
> 2. fixed granularity
> Untested though.
>
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> index 40d6548..5f0acaa 100644
> --- a/block/blk-core.c
> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> @@ -1270,17 +1270,19 @@ static void part_round_stats_single(int cpu, struct hd_struct *part,
> unsigned long now)
> {
> int inflight;
> + unsigned long old_stamp;
>
> - if (now == part->stamp)
> + if (time_before(now, part->stamp + msecs_to_jiffies(10)))
> return;
> + old_stamp = part->stamp;
> + part->stamp = now;
>
> inflight = part_in_flight(part);
> if (inflight) {
> __part_stat_add(cpu, part, time_in_queue,
> - inflight * (now - part->stamp));
> - __part_stat_add(cpu, part, io_ticks, (now - part->stamp));
> + inflight * (now - old_stamp));
> + __part_stat_add(cpu, part, io_ticks, (now - old_stamp));
> }
> - part->stamp = now;
> }
>
> /**
It'd be a good improvement, and one we should be able to do without
screwing anything up. It'd be identical to anyone running at HZ==100
right now.
So the above we can easily do, and arguably should just do. We wont see
real scaling in the IO stats path before we fixup the hd_struct
referencing as well, however.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-05 2:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-09 9:17 [PATCH] block: small performance optimization Matias Bjørling
2014-05-09 9:17 ` [PATCH] block: per-cpu counters for in-flight IO accounting Matias Bjørling
2014-05-09 14:12 ` Jens Axboe
2014-05-09 16:41 ` Jens Axboe
2014-05-30 12:11 ` Shaohua Li
2014-05-30 13:49 ` Jens Axboe
2014-06-04 10:39 ` Shaohua Li
2014-06-04 11:29 ` Matias Bjørling
2014-06-04 20:08 ` Jens Axboe
2014-06-05 2:09 ` Shaohua Li
2014-06-05 2:16 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2014-06-05 2:33 ` Shaohua Li
2014-06-05 2:42 ` Jens Axboe
2014-06-04 14:29 ` 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=538FD300.7010706@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=m@bjorling.me \
--cc=sbradshaw@micron.com \
--cc=shli@kernel.org \
/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