From: Jens Axboe on
On 28/06/10 20.40, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal(a)> writes:
>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 07:22:08PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 09:59:48PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 21/06/10 21.49, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> In testing a workload that has a single fsync-ing process and another
>>>>> process that does a sequential buffered read, I was unable to tune CFQ
>>>>> to reach the throughput of deadline. This patch, along with the previous
>>>>> one, brought CFQ in line with deadline when setting slice_idle to 0.
>>>>> I'm not sure what the original reason for not allowing sync and async
>>>>> I/O to be dispatched together was. If there is a workload I should be
>>>>> testing that shows the inherent problems of this, please point me at it
>>>>> and I will resume testing. Until and unless that workload is identified,
>>>>> please consider applying this patch.
>>>> The problematic case is/was a normal SATA drive with a buffered
>>>> writer and an occasional reader. I'll have to double check my
>>>> mail tomorrow, but iirc the issue was that the occasional reader
>>>> would suffer great latencies since service times for that single
>>>> IO would be delayed at the drive side. It could perhaps just be
>>>> a bug in how we handle the slice idling on the read side when the
>>>> IO gets delayed initially.
> [...]
>> Some primilinary testing results with and without patch. I started a
>> buffered writer and started firefox and monitored how much time firefox
>> took.
>> dd if=/dev/zero of=zerofile bs=4K count=1024M
>> 2.6.35-rc3 vanilla
>> ==================
>> real 0m22.546s
>> user 0m0.566s
>> sys 0m0.107s
>> real 0m21.410s
>> user 0m0.527s
>> sys 0m0.095s
>> real 0m27.594s
>> user 0m1.256s
>> sys 0m0.483s
>> 2.6.35-rc3 + jeff's patches
>> ===========================
>> real 0m20.372s
>> user 0m0.635s
>> sys 0m0.128s
>> real 0m22.281s
>> user 0m0.509s
>> sys 0m0.093s
>> real 0m23.211s
>> user 0m0.674s
>> sys 0m0.140s
>> So looks like firefox launching times have not changed much in the presence
>> of heavy buffered writting going on root disk. I will do more testing tomorrow.
> Jens,
> What are your thoughts on this? Can we merge it?

I'll add it to the .36 testing mix. I will re-run my older tests on the
end result, I really don't want to regress on the latency side. The above
numbers look OK.

Jens Axboe

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at