On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 21:21, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >Very true. But get_request latency is the minimum amount of time a
> >single read is going to wait (in 2.4.x anyway), and that is what we need
> >to focus on when we're trying to fix interactive performance.
> >
>
> The read situation is different to write. To fill the read queue,
> you need queue_nr_requests / 2-3 (for readahead) reading processes
> to fill the queue, more if the reads are random.
> If this kernel is being used interactively, its not our fault we
> might not give quite as good interactive performance. I'm sure
> the fileserver admin would rather take the tripled bandwidth ;)
>
> That said, I think a lot of interactive programs will want to do
> more than 1 request at a time anyway.
>
My intuition agrees with yours, but if this is true then andrea's old
elevator-lowlatency patch alone is enough, and we don't need q->full at
all. Users continued to complain of bad latencies even with his code
applied.
>From a practical point of view his old code is the same as the batch
wakeup code for get_request latencies and provides good throughput.
There are a few cases where batch wakeup has shorter overall latencies,
but I don't think people were in those heavy workloads while they were
complaining of stalls in -aa.
> >>Second, mergeable doesn't mean anything if your request size only
> >>grows to say 128KB (IDE). I saw tiobench 256 sequential writes on IDE
> >>go from ~ 25% peak throughput to ~70% (4.85->14.11 from 20MB/s disk)
> >>
> >
> >Well, play around with raw io, my box writes at roughly disk speed with
> >128k synchronous requests (contiguous writes).
> >
>
> Yeah, I'm not talking about request overhead - I think a 128K sized
> request is just fine. But when there are 256 threads writing, with
> FIFO method, 128 threads will each have 1 request in the queue. If
> they are sequential writers, each request will probably be 128K.
> That isn't enough to get good disk bandwidth. The elevator _has_ to
> make a suboptimal decision.
>
> With batching, say 8 processes have 16 sequential requests on the
> queue each. The elevator can make good choices.
I agree here too, it just doesn't match the user reports we've been
getting in 2.4 ;-) If 2.5 can dynamically allocate requests now and
then you can get much better results with io contexts/dynamic wakeups,
but I can't see how to make it work in 2.4 without larger backports.
So, the way I see things, we've got a few choices.
1) do nothing. 2.6 isn't that far off.
2) add elevator-lowlatency without q->full. It solves 90% of the
problem
3) add q->full as well and make it the default. Great latencies, not so
good throughput. Add userland tunables so people can switch.
4) back port some larger chunk of 2.5 and find a better overall
solution.
I vote for #3, don't care much if q->full is on or off by default, as
long as we make an easy way for people to set it.
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 30 2003 - 22:00:25 EST