Re: [PATCH 0/2] cfq-iosched: fixing RQ_NOIDLE handling.
From: Jeff Moyer
Date: Wed Jul 07 2010 - 13:03:21 EST
Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi Jens,
> patch 8e55063 "cfq-iosched: fix corner cases in idling logic", is
> suspected for some regressions on high end hardware.
> The two patches from this series:
> - [PATCH 1/2] cfq-iosched: fix tree-wide handling of rq_noidle
> - [PATCH 2/2] cfq-iosched: RQ_NOIDLE enabled for SYNC_WORKLOAD
> fix two issues that I have identified, related to how RQ_NOIDLE is
> used by the upper layers.
> First patch makes sure that a RQ_NOIDLE coming after a sequence of
> possibly idling requests from the same queue on the no-idle tree will
> clear the noidle_tree_requires_idle flag.
> Second patch enables RQ_NOIDLE for queues in the idling tree,
> restoring the behaviour pre-8e55063 patch.
Hi, Corrado,
I ran your kernel through my tests. Here are the results, up against
vanilla, deadline, and the blk_yield patch set:
just just
fs_mark fio mixed
-------------------------------+--------------
deadline 529.44 151.4 | 450.0 78.2
vanilla cfq 107.88 164.4 | 6.6 137.2
blk_yield cfq 530.82 158.7 | 113.2 78.6
corrado cfq 80.82 138.1 | 4.5 130.7
fs_mark results are in files/second, fio results are in MB/s. All
results are the average of 5 runs. In order to get results for the
mixed workload for both vanilla and Corrado's kernels, I had to extend
the runtime from 30s to 300s.
So, the changes proposed in this thread actually make performance worse
across the board.
I re-ran my tests against a RHEL 5 kernel (which is based on 2.6.18),
and it shows that fs_mark performance is much better than stock CFQ in
2.6.35-rc3, and the mixed workload results are much the same as they are
now (which is to say, the fs_mark process is completely starved by the
sequential reader). So, that problem has existed for a long time.
I'm still in the process of collecting data from production servers and
will report back with my findings there.
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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/