Re: [PATCH] cfq-iosched: allow groups preemption for sync-noidle workloads

[Jeff Moyer]

Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 08:21:59PM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>> commit v2.6.32-102-g8682e1f "blkio: Provide some isolation between groups" break
>> fast switching between task and journal-thread for very common write-fsync workload.
>> cfq wait idle slice at each cfqq switch, if this task is from non-root blkio cgroup.
>> 
>> This patch move idling sync-noidle preempting check little bit upwards and update
>> new service_tree->count check for case with two different groups.
>> I do not quite understand what means these check for new_cfqq, but now it even works.
>> 
>> Without patch I got 49 iops and with this patch 798, for this trivial fio script:
>> 
>> [write-fsync]
>> cgroup=test
>> cgroup_weight=1000
>> rw=write
>> fsync=1
>> size=100m
>> runtime=10s
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  block/cfq-iosched.c |   14 +++++++-------
>>  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/block/cfq-iosched.c b/block/cfq-iosched.c
>> index 3c7b537..c71533e 100644
>> --- a/block/cfq-iosched.c
>> +++ b/block/cfq-iosched.c
>> @@ -3318,19 +3318,19 @@ cfq_should_preempt(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *new_cfqq,
>>  	if (rq_is_sync(rq) && !cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq))
>>  		return true;
>>  
>> -	if (new_cfqq->cfqg != cfqq->cfqg)
>> -		return false;
>> -
>> -	if (cfq_slice_used(cfqq))
>> -		return true;
>> -
>>  	/* Allow preemption only if we are idling on sync-noidle tree */
>>  	if (cfqd->serving_type == SYNC_NOIDLE_WORKLOAD &&
>>  	    cfqq_type(new_cfqq) == SYNC_NOIDLE_WORKLOAD &&
>> -	    new_cfqq->service_tree->count == 2 &&
>> +	    new_cfqq->service_tree->count == 1+(new_cfqq->cfqg == cfqq->cfqg) &&
>
> I think this will completely break the isolation between groups. So now
> your a cgroup might be serving a cfqq from SYNC_NOIDLE_WORKLOAD and a
> SYNC_NOIDLE_WORKLOAD queue gets queued in a separate group, it will
> immediately preempt queue in other group.
>
> This problem is arising due to dependency between fsync and journalling
> threads which are in different cgroups.
>
> We had similar problem in root group also when one thread will show up
> on sync-idle tree and other thread will show up on sync-noidle tree
> and idling will kill throughput. I can't seem to remember how did we
> fix that. I know Jeff moyer was working on some slice yield patches
> but that never made in.  This patch also will not help if we run into
> this situation when a dependent thread is on a sync-idle tree.
>
> I guess we need a way to know the dependency between IO operations
> and if some dependent IO operation is waiting in other group and
> existing group has no IO to do, we can afford not to idle.
>
> Jeff, would you remember how did we fix the fsync issue?

In the absence of cgroups, it was this patch:

commit 749ef9f8423054e326f3a246327ed2db4b6d395f
Author: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Mon Sep 20 15:24:50 2010 +0200

    cfq: improve fsync performance for small files
    
    Fsync performance for small files achieved by cfq on high-end disks is
    lower than what deadline can achieve, due to idling introduced between
    the sync write happening in process context and the journal commit.
    
    Moreover, when competing with a sequential reader, a process writing
    small files and fsync-ing them is starved.
    
    This patch fixes the two problems by:
    - marking journal commits as WRITE_SYNC, so that they get the REQ_NOIDLE
      flag set,
    - force all queues that have REQ_NOIDLE requests to be put in the noidle
      tree.
    
    Having the queue associated to the fsync-ing process and the one associated
     to journal commits in the noidle tree allows:
    - switching between them without idling,
    - fairness vs. competing idling queues, since they will be serviced only
      after the noidle tree expires its slice.
    
    Acked-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx>
    Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
    Tested-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@xxxxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

If you need a mechanism to explicitly yield the I/O scheduler, I had
written several iterations of patches to provide that functionality.  I
believe this was the latest variant:
  https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/2/277

Cheers,
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/