On Fri, Jul 01 2005, Miller, Mike (OS Dev) wrote:
> > > This has been tested in our labs. There is no difference in
> > > performance, it just fixes the Oops. Please consider this patch for
> > > inclusion.
> >
> > Going to per-disk queues is undoubtedly a good idea,
> > performance will be much better this way. So far, so good.
> >
> > But you need to do something about the queueing for this to
> > be acceptable, imho. You have a per-controller queueing limit
> > in place, you need to enforce some fairness to ensure an
> > equal distribution of commands between the disks.
>
> Sometime back I submitted what we called the "fair enough" algorithm. I
> don't know how I managed to separate the two. :( But it was accepted and
> is in the mainstream kernel. Here's a snippet:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> - /*
> - * See if we can queue up some more IO
> - * check every disk that exists on this controller
> - * and start it's IO
> - */
> - for(j=0; j < NWD; j++){
> - /* make sure the disk has been added and the drive is
> real */
> - /* because this can be called from the middle of
> init_one */
> - if(!(h->gendisk[j]->queue) || !(h->drv[j].heads))
> + /* check to see if we have maxed out the number of commands that
> can
> + * be placed on the queue. If so then exit. We do this check
> here
> + * in case the interrupt we serviced was from an ioctl and did
> not
> + * free any new commands.
> + */
> + if ((find_first_zero_bit(h->cmd_pool_bits, NR_CMDS)) == NR_CMDS)
> + goto cleanup;
> +
> + /* We have room on the queue for more commands. Now we need to
> queue
> + * them up. We will also keep track of the next queue to run so
> + * that every queue gets a chance to be started first.
> + */
> + for (j=0; j < NWD; j++){
> + int curr_queue = (start_queue + j) % NWD;
> + /* make sure the disk has been added and the drive is
> real
> + * because this can be called from the middle of
> init_one.
> + */
> + if(!(h->gendisk[curr_queue]->queue) ||
> + !(h->drv[curr_queue].heads))
I suppose that will be fair-enough, at least as long as NR_CMDS >>
q->nr_requests. With eg 4 volumes, I don't think this will be the case.
Just making sure you round-robin start the queues is not enough to
ensure fair queueing between them.
> > Perhaps just limit the per-queue depth to something sane,
> > instead of the huuuge 384 commands you have now. I've had
> > several people complain to me, that ciss is doing some nasty
> > starvation with that many commands in flight and we've
> > effectively had to limit the queueing depth to something
> > really low to get adequate read performance in presence of writes.
>
> The combination of per disk queues and this "fairness" prevents
> starvation on different LV's. Ex: if volumes 0 & 1 are being written and
> volume 3 is being read all will get _almost_ equal time. We believe the
Different thing, I'm talking about single volume starvation, not
volume-to-volume.
> elevator algoritm(s) may be causing writes to starve reads on the same
> logical volume. We continue to investigate our other performance issues.
I completely disagree. Even with an intelligent io scheduler, starvation
is seen on ciss that does not happen on other queueing hardware such as
'normal' scsi controllers/drives. So something else is going on, and the
only 'fix' so far is to limit the ciss queue depth heavily.
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |