Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/2] Reworking seeky detection for 2.6.34
From: Vivek Goyal
Date: Wed Mar 03 2010 - 18:11:57 EST
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:39:05PM +0100, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Vivek,
> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 07:45:38PM +0100, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi, I'm resending the rework seeky detection patch, together with
> >>> the companion patch for SSDs, in order to get some testing on more
> >>> hardware.
> >>>
> >>> The first patch in the series fixes a regression introduced in 2.6.33
> >>> for random mmap reads of more than one page, when multiple processes
> >>> are competing for the disk.
> >>> There is at least one HW RAID controller where it reduces performance,
> >>> though (but this controller generally performs worse with CFQ than
> >>> with NOOP, probably because it is performing non-work-conserving
> >>> I/O scheduling inside), so more testing on RAIDs is appreciated.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi Corrado,
> >>
> >> This time I don't have the machine where I had previously reported
> >> regressions. But somebody has exported me two Lun from an storage box
> >> over SAN and I have done my testing on that. With this seek patch applied,
> >> I still see the regressions.
> >>
> >> iosched=cfq Filesz=1G bs=64K
> >>
> >> 2.6.33 2.6.33-seek
> >> workload Set NR RDBW(KB/s) WRBW(KB/s) RDBW(KB/s) WRBW(KB/s) %Rd %Wr
> >> -------- --- -- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---- ----
> >> brrmmap 3 1 7113 0 7044 0 0% 0%
> >> brrmmap 3 2 6977 0 6774 0 -2% 0%
> >> brrmmap 3 4 7410 0 6181 0 -16% 0%
> >> brrmmap 3 8 9405 0 6020 0 -35% 0%
> >> brrmmap 3 16 11445 0 5792 0 -49% 0%
> >>
> >> 2.6.33 2.6.33-seek
> >> workload Set NR RDBW(KB/s) WRBW(KB/s) RDBW(KB/s) WRBW(KB/s) %Rd %Wr
> >> -------- --- -- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---- ----
> >> drrmmap 3 1 7195 0 7337 0 1% 0%
> >> drrmmap 3 2 7016 0 6855 0 -2% 0%
> >> drrmmap 3 4 7438 0 6103 0 -17% 0%
> >> drrmmap 3 8 9298 0 6020 0 -35% 0%
> >> drrmmap 3 16 11576 0 5827 0 -49% 0%
> >>
> >>
> >> I have run buffered random reads on mmaped files (brrmmap) and direct
> >> random reads on mmaped files (drrmmap) using fio. I have run these for
> >> increasing number of threads and did this for 3 times and took average of
> >> three sets for reporting.
>
> BTW, I think O_DIRECT doesn't affect mmap operation.
Yes, just for the sake of curiosity I tested O_DIRECT case also.
>
> >>
> >> I have used filesize 1G and bz=64K and ran each test sample for 30
> >> seconds.
> >>
> >> Because with new seek logic, we will mark above type of cfqq as non seeky
> >> and will idle on these, I take a significant hit in performance on storage
> >> boxes which have more than 1 spindle.
> Thinking about this, can you check if your disks have a non-zero
> /sys/block/sda/queue/optimal_io_size ?
> >From the comment in blk-settings.c, I see this should be non-zero for
> RAIDs, so it may help discriminating the cases we want to optimize
> for.
> It could also help in identifying the correct threshold.
I have got multipath device setup. But I see optimal_io_size=0 both on
higher level multipath device as well as underlying component devices.
> >
> > Thanks for testing on a different setup.
> > I wonder if the wrong part for multi-spindle is the 64kb threshold.
> > Can you run with larger bs, and see if there is a value for which
> > idling is better?
> > For example on a 2 disk raid 0 I would expect that a bs larger than
> > the stripe will still benefit by idling.
> >
> >>
> >> So basically, the regression is not only on that particular RAID card but
> >> on other kind of devices which can support more than one spindle.
> Ok makes sense. If the number of sequential pages read before jumping
> to a random address is smaller than the raid stripe, we are wasting
> potential parallelism.
Actually even if we are doing IO size bigger than stripe size, we will
probably keep only request_size/stripe_size spindles busy by one request.
We are still not exploiting parallelism of rest of the spindles.
Secondly in this particular case, becuse you are issuing 4K pages reads
at a time, you are for sure going to keep one spindle busy.
Increasing the block size to 128K or 256K does bring down the % of regression,
but I think that primarly comes from the fact that now we have made
workload less random and more sequential (One seek after 256/4=64
sequential reads as opposed to one seek after 64K/4=16 sequentila reads).
With bs=128K
===========
2.6.33 2.6.33-seek
workload Set NR RDBW(KB/s) WRBW(KB/s) RDBW(KB/s) WRBW(KB/s) %Rd %Wr
-------- --- -- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---- ----
brrmmap 3 1 8338 0 8532 0 2% 0%
brrmmap 3 2 8724 0 8553 0 -1% 0%
brrmmap 3 4 9577 0 8002 0 -16% 0%
brrmmap 3 8 11806 0 7990 0 -32% 0%
brrmmap 3 16 13329 0 8101 0 -39% 0%
With bs=256K
===========
2.6.33 2.6.33-seek
workload Set NR RDBW(KB/s) WRBW(KB/s) RDBW(KB/s) WRBW(KB/s) %Rd %Wr
-------- --- -- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---- ----
brrmmap 3 1 9778 0 9572 0 -2% 0%
brrmmap 3 2 10321 0 10029 0 -2% 0%
brrmmap 3 4 11132 0 9675 0 -13% 0%
brrmmap 3 8 13111 0 10057 0 -23% 0%
brrmmap 3 16 13910 0 10366 0 -25% 0%
So if we can detect there are multiple spindles underlying, we can probably
make the non-seeky definition stricter and that is instead of looking
for 4 seeky requests per 32 samples, we could say 2 seeky requests per
64 samples etc. That could help a bit on storages with multiple spindles
behind single Lun.
Thanks
Vivek
> >>
> >> I will run some test on single SATA disk also where this patch should
> >> benefit.
> >>
> >> Based on testing results so far, I am not a big fan of marking these mmap
> >> queues as sync-idle. I guess if this patch really benefits, then we need
> >> to first put in place some kind of logic to detect whether if it is single
> >> spindle SATA disk and then on these disks, mark mmap queues as sync.
> >>
> >> Apart from synthetic workloads, in practice, where this patch is helping you?
> >
> > The synthetic workload mimics the page fault patterns that can be seen
> > on program startup, and that is the target of my optimization. In
> > 2.6.32, we went the direction of enabling idling also for seeky
> > queues, while 2.6.33 tried to be more friendly with parallel storage
> > by usually allowing more parallel requests. Unfortunately, this
> > impacted this peculiar access pattern, so we need to fix it somehow.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Corrado
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Vivek
> >>
> >>
> >>> The second patch changes the seeky detection logic to be meaningful
> >>> also for SSDs. A seeky request is one that doesn't utilize the full
> >>> bandwidth for the device. For SSDs, this happens for small requests,
> >>> regardless of their location.
> >>> With this change, the grouping of "seeky" requests done by CFQ can
> >>> result in a fairer distribution of disk service time among processes.
> >>
> >
--
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/