From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753481AbZJCOdT (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2009 10:33:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752174AbZJCOdT (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2009 10:33:19 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:38924 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751943AbZJCOdS (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2009 10:33:18 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19qPwcEBIFqpz8u2bUw+KXGv7TLSOWBifd/WY54Rf o5xmHN1ZxYh9wT Subject: Re: Do not overload dispatch queue (Was: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10) From: Mike Galbraith To: Jens Axboe Cc: Vivek Goyal , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Ulrich Lukas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, nauman@google.com, dpshah@google.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, mikew@google.com, fchecconi@gmail.com, paolo.valente@unimore.it, ryov@valinux.co.jp, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, jmoyer@redhat.com, dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, righi.andrea@gmail.com, m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com, agk@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org, jmarchan@redhat.com, riel@redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20091003142840.GE31616@kernel.dk> References: <20091002173732.GK31616@kernel.dk> <1254507215.8667.7.camel@marge.simson.net> <20091002181903.GN31616@kernel.dk> <1254548931.8299.18.camel@marge.simson.net> <1254549378.8299.21.camel@marge.simson.net> <20091003112915.GA12925@redhat.com> <20091003124049.GB12925@redhat.com> <20091003132115.GB31616@kernel.dk> <20091003135623.GD12925@redhat.com> <1254578553.7499.5.camel@marge.simson.net> <20091003142840.GE31616@kernel.dk> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:33:16 +0200 Message-Id: <1254580396.8293.3.camel@marge.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.65 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 16:28 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Sat, Oct 03 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 09:56 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > > > I have kept the overload delay period as "cfq_slice_sync" same as Mike had > > > done. We shall have to experiment what is a good waiting perioed. Is 100ms > > > too long if we are waiting for a request from same process which recently > > > finished IO and we did not enable idle on it. > > > > > > I guess we can tweak the delay period as we move along. > > > > I kept the delay period very short to minimize possible damage. Without > > the idle thing, it wasn't enough, but with, worked a treat, as does your > > patch. > > Can you test the current line up of patches in for-linus? It has the > ramp up I talked about included as well. Sure. I'll go find it. -Mike From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: Do not overload dispatch queue (Was: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10) Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:33:16 +0200 Message-ID: <1254580396.8293.3.camel@marge.simson.net> References: <20091002173732.GK31616@kernel.dk> <1254507215.8667.7.camel@marge.simson.net> <20091002181903.GN31616@kernel.dk> <1254548931.8299.18.camel@marge.simson.net> <1254549378.8299.21.camel@marge.simson.net> <20091003112915.GA12925@redhat.com> <20091003124049.GB12925@redhat.com> <20091003132115.GB31616@kernel.dk> <20091003135623.GD12925@redhat.com> <1254578553.7499.5.camel@marge.simson.net> <20091003142840.GE31616@kernel.dk> Reply-To: device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091003142840.GE31616@kernel.dk> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: Jens Axboe Cc: dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, dpshah@google.com, agk@redhat.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paolo.valente@unimore.it, jmarchan@redhat.com, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, Ulrich Lukas , mikew@google.com, jmoyer@redhat.com, nauman@google.com, Ingo Molnar , Vivek Goyal , m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com, riel@redhat.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, fchecconi@gmail.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, righi.andrea@gmail.com, Linus Torvalds List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 16:28 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Sat, Oct 03 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 09:56 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > > > I have kept the overload delay period as "cfq_slice_sync" same as Mike had > > > done. We shall have to experiment what is a good waiting perioed. Is 100ms > > > too long if we are waiting for a request from same process which recently > > > finished IO and we did not enable idle on it. > > > > > > I guess we can tweak the delay period as we move along. > > > > I kept the delay period very short to minimize possible damage. Without > > the idle thing, it wasn't enough, but with, worked a treat, as does your > > patch. > > Can you test the current line up of patches in for-linus? It has the > ramp up I talked about included as well. Sure. I'll go find it. -Mike