qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/3] Refactor AIO interface to allow other AIO implementations
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:36:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080422153616.GC10229@shareable.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <480DFE43.8060509@qumranet.com>

Avi Kivity wrote:
> >Perhaps.  This raises another point about AIO vs. threads:
> >
> >If I submit sequential O_DIRECT reads with aio_read(), will they enter
> >the device read queue in the same order, and reach the disk in that
> >order (allowing for reordering when worthwhile by the elevator)?
> 
> Yes, unless the implementation in the kernel (or glibc) is threaded.

> 
> >With threads this isn't guaranteed and scheduling makes it quite
> >likely to issue the parallel synchronous reads out of order, and for
> >them to reach the disk out of order because the elevator doesn't see
> >them simultaneously.
> 
> If the disk is busy, it doesn't matter.  The requests will queue and the 
> elevator will sort them out.  So it's just the first few requests that 
> may get to disk out of order.

There's two cases where it matters to a read-streaming app:

    1. Disk isn't busy with anything else, maximum streaming
       performance is desired.

    2. Disk is busy with unrelated things, but you're using I/O
       priorities to give the streaming app near-absolute priority.
       Then you need to maintain overlapped streaming requests,
       otherwise disk is given to a lower priority I/O.  If that
       happens often, you lose, priority is ineffective.  Because one
       of the streaming requests is usually being serviced, elevator
       has similar limitations as for a disk which is not busy with
       anything else.

> I haven't considered tape, but this is a good point indeed.  I expect it 
> doesn't make much of a difference for a loaded disk.

Yes, as long as it's loaded with unrelated requests at the same I/O
priority, the elevator has time to sort requests and hide thread
scheduling artifacts.

Btw, regarding QEMU: QEMU gets requests _after_ sorting by the guest's
elevator, then submits them to the host's elevator.  If the guest and
host elevators are both configured 'anticipatory', do the anticipatory
delays add up?

-- Jamie

  reply	other threads:[~2008-04-22 15:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-04-17 19:26 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/3] Refactor AIO interface to allow other AIO implementations Anthony Liguori
2008-04-17 19:26 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/3] Split out posix-aio code Anthony Liguori
2008-04-17 19:26 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] Implement linux-aio backend Anthony Liguori
2008-04-18 15:09   ` [Qemu-devel] " Marcelo Tosatti
2008-04-18 15:18     ` Anthony Liguori
2008-04-18 17:46       ` Marcelo Tosatti
2008-04-17 19:38 ` [Qemu-devel] Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 1/3] Refactor AIO interface to allow other AIO implementations Daniel P. Berrange
2008-04-17 19:41   ` Anthony Liguori
2008-04-17 20:00     ` Daniel P. Berrange
2008-04-17 20:05       ` Anthony Liguori
2008-04-18 12:43       ` Jamie Lokier
2008-04-18 15:23         ` Anthony Liguori
2008-04-18 16:22           ` Jamie Lokier
2008-04-18 16:32           ` [kvm-devel] [Qemu-devel] " Avi Kivity
2008-04-20 15:49             ` Jamie Lokier
2008-04-20 18:43               ` Avi Kivity
2008-04-20 23:39                 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-04-21  6:39                   ` Avi Kivity
2008-04-21 12:10                     ` Jamie Lokier
2008-04-22  8:10                       ` Avi Kivity
2008-04-22 14:28                         ` Jamie Lokier
2008-04-22 14:53                           ` Anthony Liguori
2008-04-22 15:05                             ` Avi Kivity
2008-04-22 15:23                               ` Jamie Lokier
2008-04-22 15:12                             ` Jamie Lokier
2008-04-22 15:03                           ` Avi Kivity
2008-04-22 15:36                             ` Jamie Lokier [this message]
2008-05-02 16:37                               ` Antonio Vargas
2008-05-02 17:18                                 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-02 17:52                                   ` Anthony Liguori
2008-05-02 18:24                                     ` Jamie Lokier

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=20080422153616.GC10229@shareable.org \
    --to=jamie@shareable.org \
    --cc=aliguori@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).