From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262283AbTGOFL6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:11:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262290AbTGOFL6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:11:58 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:25741 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262283AbTGOFL5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:11:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:26:40 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , Chris Mason , lkml , "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Alan Cox , Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , Alexander Viro Subject: Re: RFC on io-stalls patch Message-ID: <20030715052640.GY833@suse.de> References: <1057932804.13313.58.camel@tiny.suse.com> <20030712073710.GK843@suse.de> <1058034751.13318.95.camel@tiny.suse.com> <20030713090116.GU843@suse.de> <20030713191921.GI16313@dualathlon.random> <20030714054918.GD843@suse.de> <20030714131206.GJ833@suse.de> <20030714195138.GX833@suse.de> <20030714201637.GQ16313@dualathlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030714201637.GQ16313@dualathlon.random> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 14 2003, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:51:39PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > - rl = &q->rq; > > - if (!list_empty(&rl->free) && !blk_oversized_queue(q)) { > > + if ((rw == WRITE) && (blk_oversized_queue(q) || (rl->count < 4))) > > did you disable the oversized queue check completely for reads? This Yes > looks unsafe, you can end with loads of ram locked up this way, the > request queue cannot be limited in requests anymore. this isn't the > "request reservation", this a "nearly unlimited amount of ram locked in > for reads". Sorry, but I think that is nonsense. This is the way we have always worked. You just have to maintain a decent queue length still (like we always have in 2.4) and there are no problems. > Of course, the more reads can be in the queue, the less the background > write loads will hurt parallel apps like a kernel compile as shown in > xtar_load. > > This is very different from the schedule advantage provided by the old > queue model. If you allow an unlimited I/O queue for reads, that means > the I/O queues will be filled by an huge amount of reads and a few > writes (no matter how fast the xtar_load is writing to disk). > > In the past (2.4.22pre4) the I/O queue would been at most 50/50, with > your patch it can be 90/10, hence it can generate an huge performance > difference, that can penealize tremendously the writers in server loads > using fsync plus it can hurt the VM badly if all ram is locked up by > parallel reads. Of course contest mostly cares about reads, not writes. > > Overall I think your patch is unsafe and shouldn't be applied. It is _not_ unsafe, stop spewing nonsense like that. The patch should not be applied, it's just the first few things I did to see if it would make a difference like I described. And it had a big effect, so I posted results and went to bed. Know we have a grounds for further discussion, and I'll bench the changes seperately too as well. It's about getting data points you can use, you have to try extremese as well. > Still if you want to allow 50/50, go ahead, that logic in pre4 was an > order of magnitude more fair and generic than this patch. Sigh... No I don't want 90/10 distribution of course, that would be silly. -- Jens Axboe