Re: [PATCH] cfq: Make use of service count to estimate the rb_keyoffset

[Vivek Goyal]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:08:36AM +0100, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> Hi Gui, Jens
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Gui Jianfeng
> <guijianfeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Jens, Czoccolo
> >
> > For the moment, different workload cfq queues are put into different
> > service trees. But CFQ still uses "busy_queues" to estimate rb_key
> > offset when inserting a cfq queue into a service tree. I think this
> > isn't appropriate, and it should make use of service tree count to do
> > this estimation. This patch is for for-2.6.33 branch.
> 
> In cfq_choose_wl, we rely on consistency of rb_keys across service
> trees to compute the next workload to be serviced.
>         for (i = 0; i < 3; ++i) {
>                 /* otherwise, select the one with lowest rb_key */
>                 queue = cfq_rb_first(service_tree_for(prio, i, cfqd));
>                 if (queue &&
>                     (!key_valid || time_before(queue->rb_key, lowest_key))) {
>                         lowest_key = queue->rb_key;
> 			cur_best = i;
> 			key_valid = true;
> 		}
>         }
> 
> If you change how the rb_key is computed (so it is no longer
> consistent across service trees) without changing how it is used can
> introduce problems.
> 

Hi Corrado,

currently rb_key seems to be combination of two things. busy_queues and
jiffies. 

In new scheme, where we decide the share of a workload and then switch to
new workload, dependence on busy_queues does not seem to make much sense.

Assume, a bunch of sequential readers get backlogged and then few random
readers gets backlogged. Now random reader will get higher rb_key because
there are 8 sequential reders on sync-idle tree.

IIUC, with above logic, even if we expire the sync-idle workload duration
once, we might not switch to sync-noidle workload and start running the
sync-idle workload again. (Because minimum slice length restrictions or
if low_latency is not set).

So instead of relying on rb_keys to switch the workload type, why not do
it in round robin manner across the workload types? So rb_key will be
significant only with-in service tree and not across service tree? 

Thanks
Vivek

> Thanks,
> Corrado
> 
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  block/cfq-iosched.c |    8 ++++++--
> >  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/block/cfq-iosched.c b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> > index 1bcbd8c..467981e 100644
> > --- a/block/cfq-iosched.c
> > +++ b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> > @@ -600,11 +600,15 @@ cfq_find_next_rq(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *cfqq,
> >  static unsigned long cfq_slice_offset(struct cfq_data *cfqd,
> >                                      struct cfq_queue *cfqq)
> >  {
> > +       struct cfq_rb_root *service_tree;
> > +
> > +       service_tree = service_tree_for(cfqq_prio(cfqq), cfqq_type(cfqq), cfqd);
> > +
> >        /*
> >         * just an approximation, should be ok.
> >         */
> > -       return (cfqd->busy_queues - 1) * (cfq_prio_slice(cfqd, 1, 0) -
> > -                      cfq_prio_slice(cfqd, cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq), cfqq->ioprio));
> > +       return  service_tree->count * (cfq_prio_slice(cfqd, 1, 0) -
> > +                  cfq_prio_slice(cfqd, cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq), cfqq->ioprio));
> >  }
> >
> >  /*
> > --
> > 1.5.4.rc3
> >
> > --
> > Regards
> > Gui Jianfeng
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 
> dott. Corrado Zoccolo                          mailto:czoccolo@xxxxxxxxx
> PhD - Department of Computer Science - University of Pisa, Italy
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The self-confidence of a warrior is not the self-confidence of the average
> man. The average man seeks certainty in the eyes of the onlooker and calls
> that self-confidence. The warrior seeks impeccability in his own eyes and
> calls that humbleness.
>                                Tales of Power - C. Castaneda
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/