Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1270328

Re: CFQ timer precision

From Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: CFQ timer precision
Date 2015-11-16 17:20 +0100
Message-ID <qvuFA-18v-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <qvtJv-wB-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On 11/16/2015 08:11 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hello,
>
> lately I was looking into a big performance hit we take when blkio
> controller is enabled and jbd2 thread ends up in a different cgroup than
> user process. E.g. dbench4 throughput drops from ~140 MB/s to ~20 MB/s.
> However artificial dbench4 is, this kind of drop will likely be clearly
> visible in real life workloads as well. With unified cgroup hierarchy
> the above cgroup split between jbd2 and user processes is unavoidable
> once you enable blkio controller so IMO we should accomodate that better.
>
> I have couple of CFQ idling improvements / fixes which I'll post later this
> week once I'll complete some round of benchmarking. They improve the
> throughput to ~40 MB/s which helps but clearly there's still a big room for
> improvement. The reason for the performance drop is essentially in idling
> we do to avoid starvation of CFQ queues. Now when idling in this context,
> current default of 8 ms idle window is far to large - we start the timer
> after the final request is completed and thus we effectively give the
> process 8 ms of CPU time to submit the next IO request. Which I think is
> usually far too much. The problem is that more fine grained idling is
> actually problematic because e.g. SUSE distro kernels have HZ=250 and thus
> 1 jiffy is 4 ms. Hence my proposal: Do you think it would be OK to convert
> CFQ to use highres timers and do all the accounting in microseconds?
> Then we could tune the idle time to be say 1ms or even autotune it based on
> process' think time both of which I expect would get us much closer to
> original throughput (4 ms idle window gets us to ~70 MB/s with my patches,
> disabling idling gets us to original throughput as expected).

Converting to a non-jiffies timer base should be quite fine. We didn't 
have hrtimers when CFQ was written :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

CFQ timer precision Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> - 2015-11-16 16:20 +0100
  Re: CFQ timer precision Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2015-11-16 17:20 +0100
    Re: CFQ timer precision Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> - 2015-11-16 18:30 +0100
      Re: CFQ timer precision Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> - 2015-11-19 16:00 +0100

csiph-web