Jeff Moyer wrote:
quoted text
> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:21:46AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>>> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 05:21:00PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
>>>>> Currently, prio_trees is global, and we rely on cfqq_close() to search
>>>>> a coorperator. If the returned cfqq and the active cfqq don't belong to
>>>>> the same group, coorperator searching fails. Actually, that's not the case.
>>>>> Even if cfqq_close() returns a cfqq which belong to another cfq group, 
>>>>> it's still likely that a coorperator(same cfqg) resides in prio_trees.
>>>>> This patch introduces per cfq group prio_trees that should solve the above
>>>>> issue.
>>>>>
>>>> Hi Gui,
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure I understand the issue here.  So are you saying that once
>>>> we find a cfqq which is close but belongs to a different group we reject
>>>> it. But there could be another cfqq in the same group which is not as
>>>> close but still close enough.
>>>>
>>>> For example, assume there are two queues q1 and q2 and in group and third
>>>> queue q3 in group B. Assume q1 is active queue and we are searching for
>>>> cooperator. If cooperator code finds q3 as closest then we will not pick
>>>> this queue as it belongs to a different group. But it could happen that
>>>> q2 is also close enough and we never considered that possibility.
>>>>
>>>> If yes, then its a good theoritical concern but I am worried practically
>>>> how often does it happen. Do you have any workload which suffers because
>>>> of this?
>>> That was my reading.  It also means that, in the case that we have
>>> cgroups in use, each rb tree will be smaller.
>>>
>>>> I am not too inclined to push more complexity in CFQ until and unless we
>>>> have a good use case.
>>> I don't think this adds complexity, does it?  It simply moves the
>>> priority trees up a level, which is arguably where they belong.
>> What happens when cfqq moves to a different group. group_isolation=0. Then
>> we also need to add code to change prio tree of the cfqq. Curretnly prio
>> tree are global so we don't have to worry about it. I don't think this
>> patch takes are of that issue.
> 
> Yeah, that had occurred to me.
> 
>> That's a different thing that I am beginning to not like group_isoation=0
>> because this additional variable that cfqq's can move dynamically across
>> groups is making life hard while adding more code in CFQ. So if nobody
>> is using it I was thinking of getting rid of group_isolation tunable.
>>
>> It does bring the issue of severe performance penalty for sync-noidle
>> workloads across groups. I think that should be solved by a different
>> tunable like don't worry about fairness if group is not driving a minimum
>> queue depth and this should be adjustable by tunable so that system admin
>> can decide the right balance between fairness/isolation and throughput.
> 
> I'm not sure what you concluded here.  ;-)
> 
> The way I see it, Gui's patch makes sense.  It sounds like you agree,
> but you didn't like it because you have to write extra code to deal with
> the case of group_isolation=0.  I simply don't agree with that line of
> reasoning.
> 
> Now, there is the question of whether Gui's patch introduces any *real*
> benefit.  I'd honestly be surprised if it did.  Gui, can you give us
> some benchmark results that show the benefit?  If there is no benefit,
> then I'm happy to leave the code the way it is.

Hi Jeff, Vivek

Sorry for the very late reply.

IMO, this patch give us the following benefits:
1 Fix the unexpected coorperator searching fail.
2 shring the prio_tree size to save searching time.

I'd still like to do some performance tests to see how well this 
patch works.

Thanks,
Gui

quoted text
> 
> Cheers,
> Jeff
> 
> 
--
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/