[ltt-dev] [RFC PATCH] block: Fix bio merge induced high I/O latency
Jens Axboe
jens.axboe at oracle.com
Tue Jan 20 09:24:57 EST 2009
On Tue, Jan 20 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Jens Axboe (jens.axboe at oracle.com) wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 19 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > * Jens Axboe (jens.axboe at oracle.com) wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 18 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > > > I looked at the "ls" behavior (while doing a dd) within my LTTng trace
> > > > > > to create a fio job file. The said behavior is appended below as "Part
> > > > > > 1 - ls I/O behavior". Note that the original "ls" test case was done
> > > > > > with the anticipatory I/O scheduler, which was active by default on my
> > > > > > debian system with custom vanilla 2.6.28 kernel. Also note that I am
> > > > > > running this on a raid-1, but have experienced the same problem on a
> > > > > > standard partition I created on the same machine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I created the fio job file appended as "Part 2 - dd+ls fio job file". It
> > > > > > consists of one dd-like job and many small jobs reading as many data as
> > > > > > ls did. I used the small test script to batch run this ("Part 3 - batch
> > > > > > test").
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The results for the ls-like jobs are interesting :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I/O scheduler runt-min (msec) runt-max (msec)
> > > > > > noop 41 10563
> > > > > > anticipatory 63 8185
> > > > > > deadline 52 33387
> > > > > > cfq 43 1420
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Extra note : I have a HZ=250 on my system. Changing to 100 or 1000 did
> > > > not make much difference (also tried with NO_HZ enabled).
> > > >
> > > > > Do you have queuing enabled on your drives? You can check that in
> > > > > /sys/block/sdX/device/queue_depth. Try setting those to 1 and retest all
> > > > > schedulers, would be good for comparison.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here are the tests with a queue_depth of 1 :
> > > >
> > > > I/O scheduler runt-min (msec) runt-max (msec)
> > > > noop 43 38235
> > > > anticipatory 44 8728
> > > > deadline 51 19751
> > > > cfq 48 427
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Overall, I wouldn't say it makes much difference.
> > >
> > > 0,5 seconds vs 1,5 seconds isn't much of a difference?
> > >
> > > > > raid personalities or dm complicates matters, since it introduces a
> > > > > disconnect between 'ls' and the io scheduler at the bottom...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, ideally I should re-run those directly on the disk partitions.
> > >
> > > At least for comparison.
> > >
> > > > I am also tempted to create a fio job file which acts like a ssh server
> > > > receiving a connexion after it has been pruned from the cache while the
> > > > system if doing heavy I/O. "ssh", in this case, seems to be doing much
> > > > more I/O than a simple "ls", and I think we might want to see if cfq
> > > > behaves correctly in such case. Most of this I/O is coming from page
> > > > faults (identified as traps in the trace) probably because the ssh
> > > > executable has been thrown out of the cache by
> > > >
> > > > echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
> > > >
> > > > The behavior of an incoming ssh connexion after clearing the cache is
> > > > appended below (Part 1 - LTTng trace for incoming ssh connexion). The
> > > > job file created (Part 2) reads, for each job, a 2MB file with random
> > > > reads each between 4k-44k. The results are very interesting for cfq :
> > > >
> > > > I/O scheduler runt-min (msec) runt-max (msec)
> > > > noop 586 110242
> > > > anticipatory 531 26942
> > > > deadline 561 108772
> > > > cfq 523 28216
> > > >
> > > > So, basically, ssh being out of the cache can take 28s to answer an
> > > > incoming ssh connexion even with the cfq scheduler. This is not exactly
> > > > what I would call an acceptable latency.
> > >
> > > At some point, you have to stop and consider what is acceptable
> > > performance for a given IO pattern. Your ssh test case is purely random
> > > IO, and neither CFQ nor AS would do any idling for that. We can make
> > > this test case faster for sure, the hard part is making sure that we
> > > don't regress on async throughput at the same time.
> > >
> > > Also remember that with your raid1, it's not entirely reasonable to
> > > blaim all performance issues on the IO scheduler as per my previous
> > > mail. It would be a lot more fair to view the disk numbers individually.
> > >
> > > Can you retry this job with 'quantum' set to 1 and 'slice_async_rq' set
> > > to 1 as well?
> > >
> > > However, I think we should be doing somewhat better at this test case.
> >
> > Mathieu, does this improve anything for you?
> >
>
> I got this message when running with your patch applied :
> cfq: forced dispatching is broken (nr_sorted=4294967275), please report this
> (message appeared 10 times in a job run)
Woops, missed a sort inc. Updated version below, or just ignore the
warning.
> Here is the result :
>
> ssh test done on /dev/sda directly
>
> queue_depth=31 (default)
> /sys/block/sda/queue/iosched/slice_async_rq = 2 (default)
> /sys/block/sda/queue/iosched/quantum = 4 (default)
>
> I/O scheduler runt-min (msec) runt-max (msec)
> cfq (default) 523 6637
> cfq (patched) 564 7195
>
> Pretty much the same.
Can you retry with depth=1 as well? There's not much to rip back out, if
everything is immediately sent to the device.
>
> Here is the test done on raid1 :
> queue_depth=31 (default)
> /sys/block/sd{a,b}/queue/iosched/slice_async_rq = 2 (default)
> /sys/block/sd{a,b}/queue/iosched/quantum = 4 (default)
>
> I/O scheduler runt-min (msec) runt-max (msec)
> cfq (default, raid1) 523 28216
> cfq (patched, raid1) 540 16454
>
> With nearly same order of magnitude worse-case.
diff --git a/block/cfq-iosched.c b/block/cfq-iosched.c
index e8525fa..30714de 100644
--- a/block/cfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/cfq-iosched.c
@@ -1765,6 +1765,36 @@ cfq_update_idle_window(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *cfqq,
}
/*
+ * Pull dispatched requests from 'cfqq' back into the scheduler
+ */
+static void cfq_pull_dispatched_requests(struct cfq_data *cfqd,
+ struct cfq_queue *cfqq)
+{
+ struct request_queue *q = cfqd->queue;
+ struct request *rq;
+
+ list_for_each_entry_reverse(rq, &q->queue_head, queuelist) {
+ if (rq->cmd_flags & REQ_STARTED)
+ break;
+
+ if (RQ_CFQQ(rq) != cfqq)
+ continue;
+
+ /*
+ * Pull off the dispatch list and put it back into the cfqq
+ */
+ list_del(&rq->queuelist);
+ cfqq->dispatched--;
+ if (cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq))
+ cfqd->sync_flight--;
+
+ cfq_add_rq_rb(rq);
+ q->nr_sorted++;
+ list_add_tail(&rq->queuelist, &cfqq->fifo);
+ }
+}
+
+/*
* Check if new_cfqq should preempt the currently active queue. Return 0 for
* no or if we aren't sure, a 1 will cause a preempt.
*/
@@ -1820,8 +1850,14 @@ cfq_should_preempt(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *new_cfqq,
*/
static void cfq_preempt_queue(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *cfqq)
{
+ struct cfq_queue *old_cfqq = cfqd->active_queue;
+
cfq_log_cfqq(cfqd, cfqq, "preempt");
- cfq_slice_expired(cfqd, 1);
+
+ if (old_cfqq) {
+ __cfq_slice_expired(cfqd, old_cfqq, 1);
+ cfq_pull_dispatched_requests(cfqd, old_cfqq);
+ }
/*
* Put the new queue at the front of the of the current list,
--
Jens Axboe
More information about the lttng-dev
mailing list