Re: [PATCH] cfq-iosched: non-rot devices do not need queue merging

[Jens Axboe]

On Wed, Dec 30 2009, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 30 2009, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> >> Non rotational devices' performances are not affected by
> >> distance of requests, so there is no point in having overhead
> >> to merge queues of nearby requests.
> >
> > If the distance is zero, it may still make a big difference (at least
> > for writes). This check would be better as "ncq and doesn't suck", ala
> >
> >        blk_queue_nonrot(q) && tagged
> >
> > like we do elsewhere.
> 
> For reads, though, even flash cards and netbook ssds are completely
> unaffected. I have done few experiments on my available disks:
> * http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3525644/service_time.png (I used the
> program: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3525644/stride.c to get the graphs).

Completely agree, it's writes that matter (as mentioned).

> For distance 0, I think request merging will be more effective than
> queue merging, moreover I think the multi-thread trick to have large

Definitely true, but we don't allow cross cfqq merges to begin with.

> I/O depth is used for reads, not writes (where simply issuing buffered
> writes already achieves a similar effect), so I think it is safe to
> disable it for all non-rotational devices.

That still leaves direct writes. Granted it's a problem with a huge
scope, but still.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/