Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752851AbZJWTKW (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:10:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752724AbZJWTKV (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:10:21 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35053 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752646AbZJWTKV (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:10:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:16:02 -0400 Message-Id: <200910211516.n9LFG27p031289@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> X-Draft-From: ("nnimap+mail.corp.redhat.com:INBOX" 415086) References: <200910202011.53858.czoccolo@gmail.com> To: Corrado Zoccolo Cc: "Linux-Kernel" , Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [RFC V2 PATCH 1/5] cfq-iosched: adapt slice to number of processes doing I/O X-PGP-KeyID: 1F78E1B4 X-PGP-CertKey: F6FE 280D 8293 F72C 65FD 5A58 1FF8 A7CA 1F78 E1B4 X-PCLoadLetter: What the f**k does that mean? From: Jeff Moyer Gcc: nnfolder+archive:sent-mail Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3011 Lines: 85 Hi, Corrado! Corrado Zoccolo writes: > When the number of processes performing I/O concurrently increases, > a fixed time slice per process will cause large latencies. > > This patch, if low_latency mode is enabled, will scale the time slice > assigned to each process according to a 300ms target latency. > > In order to keep fairness among processes: > * The number of active processes is computed using a special form of > running average, that quickly follows sudden increases (to keep latency low), > and decrease slowly (to have fairness in spite of rapid decreases of this > value). > > To safeguard sequential bandwidth, we impose a minimum time slice > (computed using 2*cfq_slice_idle as base, adjusted according to priority > and async-ness). I like the idea as well, but I have a question and some nits to pick. > static inline void > cfq_set_prio_slice(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *cfqq) > { > - cfqq->slice_end = cfq_prio_to_slice(cfqd, cfqq) + jiffies; > + unsigned slice = cfq_prio_to_slice(cfqd, cfqq); > + if (cfqd->cfq_latency) { > + unsigned iq = cfq_get_avg_queues(cfqd, cfq_class_rt(cfqq)); > + unsigned process_thr = cfq_target_latency / cfqd->cfq_slice[1]; > + if (iq > process_thr) { > + unsigned low_slice = 2 * slice * cfqd->cfq_slice_idle > + / cfqd->cfq_slice[1]; > + slice = max(slice * cfq_target_latency / > + (cfqd->cfq_slice[1] * iq), Couldn't you have just divided the slice by iq? And why iq? Why not nr_qs or avg_qlen or something? It's a minor nit; I can live with it. > + min(slice, low_slice)); > + } > + } > + cfqq->slice_end = jiffies + slice; > cfq_log_cfqq(cfqd, cfqq, "set_slice=%lu", cfqq->slice_end - jiffies); Wow. That function is *dense*. I tried to write it in a more readable fashion, but please chime in if I misinterpreted anything. static inline void cfq_set_prio_slice(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *cfqq) { unsigned slice = cfq_prio_to_slice(cfqd, cfqq); if (cfqd->cfq_latency) { unsigned iq = cfq_get_avg_queues(cfqd, cfq_class_rt(cfqq)); unsigned slice_sync = cfqd->cfq_slice[1]; unsigned process_thr = cfq_target_latency / slice_sync; if (iq > process_thr) { /* * Minimum slice is computed using 2*slice_idle as * a base, and then scaling it by priority and * async-ness. */ unsigned total_sync = slice_sync * iq; unsigned slice_fraction = cfq_target_latency / total_sync; unsigned min_slice = (2 * cfqd->cfq_slice_idle) * (slice / slice_sync); min_slice = min(slice, min_slice); slice *= slice_fraction; slice = max(slice, min_slice); } } cfqq->slice_end = jiffies + slice; cfq_log_cfqq(cfqd, cfqq, "set_slice=%lu", cfqq->slice_end - jiffies); } Cheers, Jeff -- 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/