Re: [PATCH 1/4] cfq: Increase default value of target_latency
From: Dave Chinner
Date: Thu Jun 19 2014 - 17:42:50 EST
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:38:44PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > The existing CFQ default target_latency results in very poor performance
> > for larger numbers of threads doing sequential reads. While this can be
> > easily described as a tuning problem for users, it is one that is tricky
> > to detect. This patch the default on the assumption that people with access
> > to expensive fast storage also know how to tune their IO scheduler.
> >
> > The following is from tiobench run on a mid-range desktop with a single
> > spinning disk.
> >
> > 3.16.0-rc1 3.16.0-rc1 3.0.0
> > vanilla cfq600 vanilla
> > Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-1 121.88 ( 0.00%) 121.60 ( -0.23%) 134.59 ( 10.42%)
> > Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-2 101.99 ( 0.00%) 102.35 ( 0.36%) 122.59 ( 20.20%)
> > Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-4 97.42 ( 0.00%) 99.71 ( 2.35%) 114.78 ( 17.82%)
> > Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-8 83.39 ( 0.00%) 90.39 ( 8.39%) 100.14 ( 20.09%)
> > Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-16 68.90 ( 0.00%) 77.29 ( 12.18%) 81.64 ( 18.50%)
>
> Did you test any workloads other than this? Also, what normal workload
> has 8 or more threads doing sequential reads? (That's an honest
> question.)
I'd also suggest that making changes basd on the assumption that
people affected by the change know how to tune CFQ is a bad idea.
When CFQ misbehaves, most people just switch to deadline or no-op
because they don't understand how CFQ works, nor what what all the
nobs do or which ones to tweak to solve their problem....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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/