Re: [RFC 0/3]block: An IOPS based ioscheduler

[Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@lge.com>]

2012-01-06 PM 2:12, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 14:50 +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 18:19 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 02:53:37PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
>>>> An IOPS based I/O scheduler
>>>>
>>>> Flash based storage has some different characteristics against rotate disk.
>>>> 1. no I/O seek.
>>>> 2. read and write I/O cost usually is much different.
>>>> 3. Time which a request takes depends on request size.
>>>> 4. High throughput and IOPS, low latency.
>>>>
>>>> CFQ iosched does well for rotate disk, for example fair dispatching, idle
>>>> for sequential read. It also has optimization for flash based storage (for
>>>> item 1 above), but overall it's not designed for flash based storage. It's
>>>> a slice based algorithm. Since flash based storage request cost is very
>>>> low, and drive has big queue_depth is quite popular now which makes
>>>> dispatching cost even lower, CFQ's slice accounting (jiffy based)
>>>> doesn't work well. CFQ doesn't consider above item 2&  3.
>>>>
>>>> FIOPS (Fair IOPS) ioscheduler is trying to fix the gaps. It's IOPS based, so
>>>> only targets for drive without I/O seek. It's quite similar like CFQ, but
>>>> the dispatch decision is made according to IOPS instead of slice.
>>>>
>>>> The algorithm is simple. Drive has a service tree, and each task lives in
>>>> the tree. The key into the tree is called vios (virtual I/O). Every request
>>>> has vios, which is calculated according to its ioprio, request size and so
>>>> on. Task's vios is the sum of vios of all requests it dispatches. FIOPS
>>>> always selects task with minimum vios in the service tree and let the task
>>>> dispatch request. The dispatched request's vios is then added to the task's
>>>> vios and the task is repositioned in the sevice tree.
>>>>
>>>> The series are orgnized as:
>>>> Patch 1: separate CFQ's io context management code. FIOPS will use it too.
>>>> Patch 2: The core FIOPS.
>>>> Patch 3: request read/write vios scale. This demontrates how the vios scale.
>>>>
>>>> To make the code simple for easy view, some scale code isn't included here,
>>>> some not implementated yet.
>>>>
>>>> TODO:
>>>> 1. ioprio support (have patch already)
>>>> 2. request size vios scale
>>>> 3. cgroup support
>>>> 4. tracing support
>>>> 5. automatically select default iosched according to QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT.
>>>>
>>>> Comments and suggestions are welcome!
>>>
>>> Benchmark results?
>> I didn't have data yet. The patches are still in earlier stage, I want
>> to focus on the basic idea first.
> since you asked, I tested in a 4 socket machine with 12 X25M SSD jbod,
> fs is ext4.
>
> workload		percentage change with fiops against cfq
> fio_sync_read_4k        -2
> fio_mediaplay_64k       0
> fio_mediaplay_128k      0
> fio_mediaplay_rr_64k    0
> fio_sync_read_rr_4k     0
> fio_sync_write_128k     0
> fio_sync_write_64k      -1
> fio_sync_write_4k       -2
> fio_sync_write_64k_create       0
> fio_sync_write_rr_64k_create    0
> fio_sync_write_128k_create      0
> fio_aio_randread_4k     -4
> fio_aio_randread_64k    0
> fio_aio_randwrite_4k    1
> fio_aio_randwrite_64k   0
> fio_aio_randrw_4k       -1
> fio_aio_randrw_64k      0
> fio_tpch        9
> fio_tpcc        0
> fio_mmap_randread_4k    -1
> fio_mmap_randread_64k   1
> fio_mmap_randread_1k    -8
> fio_mmap_randwrite_4k   35
> fio_mmap_randwrite_64k  22
> fio_mmap_randwrite_1k   28
> fio_mmap_randwrite_4k_halfbusy  24
> fio_mmap_randrw_4k      23
> fio_mmap_randrw_64k     4
> fio_mmap_randrw_1k      22
> fio_mmap_randrw_4k_halfbusy     35
> fio_mmap_sync_read_4k   0
> fio_mmap_sync_read_64k  -1
> fio_mmap_sync_read_128k         -1
> fio_mmap_sync_read_rr_64k       5
> fio_mmap_sync_read_rr_4k        3
>
> The fio_mmap_randread_1k has regression against 3.2-rc7, but no
> regression against 3.2-rc6 kernel, still checking why. The fiops has
> improvement for read/write mixed workload. CFQ is known not good for
> read/write mixed workload.
>
> Thanks,
> Shaohua
>

Hi,

Looks promising. :) Anyway what's your configuration for the test? Did 
you use vios scaling based on IO direction and/or ioprio?

Thanks,
Namhyung Kim