On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:31:46PM +0800, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
quoted text
> 
> 
> Wu Fengguang wrote:
> [...]
> > Christian, did you notice this commit for 2.6.33?
> > 
> > commit 65a80b4c61f5b5f6eb0f5669c8fb120893bfb388
> [...]
> 
> I didn't see that particular one, due to the fact that whatever the 
> result is it needs to work .32
> 
> Anyway I'll test it tomorrow and if that already accepted one fixes my 
> issue as well I'll recommend distros older than 2.6.33 picking that one 
> up in their on top patches.

OK, thanks!

quoted text
> > 
> > It should at least improve performance between .32 and .33, because
> > once two readahead requests are merged into one single IO request,
> > the PageUptodate() will be true at next readahead, and hence
> > blk_run_backing_dev() get called to break out of the suboptimal
> > situation.
> 
> As you saw from my blktrace thats already the case without that patch.
> Once the second readahead comes in and merged it gets unplugged in 
> 2.6.32 too - but still that is bad behavior as it denies my things like 
> 68% throughput improvement :-).

I mean, when readahead windows A and B are submitted in one IO --
let's call it AB -- commit 65a80b4c61 will explicitly unplug on doing
readahead C.  While in your trace, the unplug appears on AB.

The 68% improvement is very impressive. Wondering if commit 65a80b4c61
(the _conditional_ unplug) can achieve the same level of improvement :)

quoted text
> > 
> > Your patch does reduce the possible readahead submit latency to 0.
> 
> yeah and I think/hope that is fine, because as I stated:
> - low utilized disk -> not an issue
> - high utilized disk -> unplug is an noop
> 
> At least personally I consider a case where merging of a readahead 
> window with anything except its own sibling very rare - and therefore 
> fair to unplug after and RA is submitted.

They are reasonable assumptions. However I'm not sure if this
unconditional unplug will defeat CFQ's anticipatory logic -- if there
are any. You know commit 65a80b4c61 is more about a *defensive*
protection against the rare case that two readahead windows get
merged.

quoted text
> > Is your workload a simple dd on a single disk? If so, it sounds like
> > something illogical hidden in the block layer.
> 
> It might still be illogical hidden as e.g. 2.6.27 unplugged after the 
> first readahead as well :-)
> But no my load is iozone running with different numbers of processes 
> with one disk per process.
> That neatly resembles e.g. nightly backup jobs which tend to take longer 
> and longer in all time increasing customer scenarios. Such an 
> improvement might banish the backups back to the night were they belong :-)

Exactly one process per disk? Are they doing sequential reads or more
complicated access patterns?

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
unsubscribe notice
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/