Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:29:06 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Nauman Rafique <nauman@google.com>
Cc: Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com>,
       Dhaval Giani <dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, dpshah@google.com,
       lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, mikew@google.com, fchecconi@gmail.com,
       paolo.valente@unimore.it, jens.axboe@oracle.com, ryov@valinux.co.jp,
       fernando@intellilink.co.jp, s-uchida@ap.jp.nec.com, taka@valinux.co.jp,
       arozansk@redhat.com, jmoyer@redhat.com, oz-kernel@redhat.com,
       balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
       menage@google.com, peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] Documentation
Message-ID: <20090324182906.GF21389@redhat.com>
References: <1236823015-4183-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <1236823015-4183-2-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <20090312100054.GA8024@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090312140450.GE10919@redhat.com> <49C0A171.8060009@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090318215529.GA3338@redhat.com> <e98e18940903232232i432f62c5r9dfd74268e1b2684@mail.gmail.com> <20090324125842.GA21389@redhat.com> <e98e18940903241114u1e03ae7dhf654d7d8d0fc0302@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <e98e18940903241114u1e03ae7dhf654d7d8d0fc0302@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2996
Lines: 62

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:14:13AM -0700, Nauman Rafique wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:32:41PM -0700, Nauman Rafique wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >> > DESC
> >> > io-controller: idle for sometime on sync queue before expiring it
> >> > EDESC
> >> >
> >> > o When a sync queue expires, in many cases it might be empty and then
> >> > ?it will be deleted from the active tree. This will lead to a scenario
> >> > ?where out of two competing queues, only one is on the tree and when a
> >> > ?new queue is selected, vtime jump takes place and we don't see services
> >> > ?provided in proportion to weight.
> >> >
> >> > o In general this is a fundamental problem with fairness of sync queues
> >> > ?where queues are not continuously backlogged. Looks like idling is
> >> > ?only solution to make sure such kind of queues can get some decent amount
> >> > ?of disk bandwidth in the face of competion from continusouly backlogged
> >> > ?queues. But excessive idling has potential to reduce performance on SSD
> >> > ?and disks with commnad queuing.
> >> >
> >> > o This patch experiments with waiting for next request to come before a
> >> > ?queue is expired after it has consumed its time slice. This can ensure
> >> > ?more accurate fairness numbers in some cases.
> >>
> >> Vivek, have you introduced this option just to play with it, or you
> >> are planning to make it a part of the patch set. Waiting for a new
> >> request to come before expiring time slice sounds problematic.
> >
> > Why are the issues you forsee with it. This is just an extra 8ms idling
> > on the sync queue that is also if think time of the queue is not high.
> >
> > We already do idling on sync queues. In this case we are doing an extra
> > idle even if queue has consumed its allocated quota. It helps me get
> > fairness numbers and I have put it under a tunable "fairness". So by
> > default this code will not kick in.
> >
> > Other possible option could be that when expiring a sync queue, don't
> > remove the queue immediately from the tree and remove it later if there
> > is no request from the queue in 8ms or so. I am not sure with BFQ, is it
> > feasible to do that without creating issues with current implementation.
> > Current implementation was simple, so I stick to it to begin with.
> 
> If the maximum wait is bounded by 8ms, then it should be fine. The
> comments on the patch did not talk about such limit; it sounded like
> unbounded wait to me.
> 
> Does keeping the sync queue in ready tree solves the problem too? Is
> it because it avoid a virtual time jump?
> 

I have not tried the second approch yet. But that also should solve the
vtime jump issue.

Thanks
Vivek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/