summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/block/bfq-iosched.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorPaolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>2017-12-15 07:23:12 +0100
committerJens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>2018-01-05 09:31:19 -0700
commita34b024448eb71b0e51ad011fa1862236e366034 (patch)
tree1b8dfea18fe25a61e711792afb1d877247a14df5 /block/bfq-iosched.c
parent4403e4e467c365b4189e3e3d3ad35cf67b8c36ed (diff)
downloadlinux-0-day-a34b024448eb71b0e51ad011fa1862236e366034.tar.gz
block, bfq: consider also past I/O in soft real-time detection
BFQ privileges the I/O of soft real-time applications, such as video players, to guarantee to these application a high bandwidth and a low latency. In this respect, it is not easy to correctly detect when an application is soft real-time. A particularly nasty false positive is that of an I/O-bound application that occasionally happens to meet all requirements to be deemed as soft real-time. After being detected as soft real-time, such an application monopolizes the device. Fortunately, BFQ will realize soon that the application is actually not soft real-time and suspend every privilege. Yet, the application may happen again to be wrongly detected as soft real-time, and so on. As highlighted by our tests, this problem causes BFQ to occasionally fail to guarantee a high responsiveness, in the presence of heavy background I/O workloads. The reason is that the background workload happens to be detected as soft real-time, more or less frequently, during the execution of the interactive task under test. To give an idea, because of this problem, Libreoffice Writer occasionally takes 8 seconds, instead of 3, to start up, if there are sequential reads and writes in the background, on a Kingston SSDNow V300. This commit addresses this issue by leveraging the following facts. The reason why some applications are detected as soft real-time despite all BFQ checks to avoid false positives, is simply that, during high CPU or storage-device load, I/O-bound applications may happen to do I/O slowly enough to meet all soft real-time requirements, and pass all BFQ extra checks. Yet, this happens only for limited time periods: slow-speed time intervals are usually interspersed between other time intervals during which these applications do I/O at a very high speed. To exploit these facts, this commit introduces a little change, in the detection of soft real-time behavior, to systematically consider also the recent past: the higher the speed was in the recent past, the later next I/O should arrive for the application to be considered as soft real-time. At the beginning of a slow-speed interval, the minimum arrival time allowed for the next I/O usually happens to still be so high, to fall *after* the end of the slow-speed period itself. As a consequence, the application does not risk to be deemed as soft real-time during the slow-speed interval. Then, during the next high-speed interval, the application cannot, evidently, be deemed as soft real-time (exactly because of its speed), and so on. This extra filtering proved to be rather effective: in the above test, the frequency of false positives became so low that the start-up time was 3 seconds in all iterations (apart from occasional outliers, caused by page-cache-management issues, which are out of the scope of this commit, and cannot be solved by an I/O scheduler). Tested-by: Lee Tibbert <lee.tibbert@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Angelo Ruocco <angeloruocco90@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Diffstat (limited to 'block/bfq-iosched.c')
-rw-r--r--block/bfq-iosched.c115
1 files changed, 81 insertions, 34 deletions
diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
index 9625550..e33c5c4 100644
--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
@@ -2940,45 +2940,87 @@ static bool bfq_bfqq_is_slow(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
* whereas soft_rt_next_start is set to infinity for applications that do
* not.
*
- * Unfortunately, even a greedy application may happen to behave in an
- * isochronous way if the CPU load is high. In fact, the application may
- * stop issuing requests while the CPUs are busy serving other processes,
- * then restart, then stop again for a while, and so on. In addition, if
- * the disk achieves a low enough throughput with the request pattern
- * issued by the application (e.g., because the request pattern is random
- * and/or the device is slow), then the application may meet the above
- * bandwidth requirement too. To prevent such a greedy application to be
- * deemed as soft real-time, a further rule is used in the computation of
- * soft_rt_next_start: soft_rt_next_start must be higher than the current
- * time plus the maximum time for which the arrival of a request is waited
- * for when a sync queue becomes idle, namely bfqd->bfq_slice_idle.
- * This filters out greedy applications, as the latter issue instead their
- * next request as soon as possible after the last one has been completed
- * (in contrast, when a batch of requests is completed, a soft real-time
- * application spends some time processing data).
+ * Unfortunately, even a greedy (i.e., I/O-bound) application may
+ * happen to meet, occasionally or systematically, both the above
+ * bandwidth and isochrony requirements. This may happen at least in
+ * the following circumstances. First, if the CPU load is high. The
+ * application may stop issuing requests while the CPUs are busy
+ * serving other processes, then restart, then stop again for a while,
+ * and so on. The other circumstances are related to the storage
+ * device: the storage device is highly loaded or reaches a low-enough
+ * throughput with the I/O of the application (e.g., because the I/O
+ * is random and/or the device is slow). In all these cases, the
+ * I/O of the application may be simply slowed down enough to meet
+ * the bandwidth and isochrony requirements. To reduce the probability
+ * that greedy applications are deemed as soft real-time in these
+ * corner cases, a further rule is used in the computation of
+ * soft_rt_next_start: the return value of this function is forced to
+ * be higher than the maximum between the following two quantities.
*
- * Unfortunately, the last filter may easily generate false positives if
- * only bfqd->bfq_slice_idle is used as a reference time interval and one
- * or both the following cases occur:
- * 1) HZ is so low that the duration of a jiffy is comparable to or higher
- * than bfqd->bfq_slice_idle. This happens, e.g., on slow devices with
- * HZ=100.
+ * (a) Current time plus: (1) the maximum time for which the arrival
+ * of a request is waited for when a sync queue becomes idle,
+ * namely bfqd->bfq_slice_idle, and (2) a few extra jiffies. We
+ * postpone for a moment the reason for adding a few extra
+ * jiffies; we get back to it after next item (b). Lower-bounding
+ * the return value of this function with the current time plus
+ * bfqd->bfq_slice_idle tends to filter out greedy applications,
+ * because the latter issue their next request as soon as possible
+ * after the last one has been completed. In contrast, a soft
+ * real-time application spends some time processing data, after a
+ * batch of its requests has been completed.
+ *
+ * (b) Current value of bfqq->soft_rt_next_start. As pointed out
+ * above, greedy applications may happen to meet both the
+ * bandwidth and isochrony requirements under heavy CPU or
+ * storage-device load. In more detail, in these scenarios, these
+ * applications happen, only for limited time periods, to do I/O
+ * slowly enough to meet all the requirements described so far,
+ * including the filtering in above item (a). These slow-speed
+ * time intervals are usually interspersed between other time
+ * intervals during which these applications do I/O at a very high
+ * speed. Fortunately, exactly because of the high speed of the
+ * I/O in the high-speed intervals, the values returned by this
+ * function happen to be so high, near the end of any such
+ * high-speed interval, to be likely to fall *after* the end of
+ * the low-speed time interval that follows. These high values are
+ * stored in bfqq->soft_rt_next_start after each invocation of
+ * this function. As a consequence, if the last value of
+ * bfqq->soft_rt_next_start is constantly used to lower-bound the
+ * next value that this function may return, then, from the very
+ * beginning of a low-speed interval, bfqq->soft_rt_next_start is
+ * likely to be constantly kept so high that any I/O request
+ * issued during the low-speed interval is considered as arriving
+ * to soon for the application to be deemed as soft
+ * real-time. Then, in the high-speed interval that follows, the
+ * application will not be deemed as soft real-time, just because
+ * it will do I/O at a high speed. And so on.
+ *
+ * Getting back to the filtering in item (a), in the following two
+ * cases this filtering might be easily passed by a greedy
+ * application, if the reference quantity was just
+ * bfqd->bfq_slice_idle:
+ * 1) HZ is so low that the duration of a jiffy is comparable to or
+ * higher than bfqd->bfq_slice_idle. This happens, e.g., on slow
+ * devices with HZ=100. The time granularity may be so coarse
+ * that the approximation, in jiffies, of bfqd->bfq_slice_idle
+ * is rather lower than the exact value.
* 2) jiffies, instead of increasing at a constant rate, may stop increasing
* for a while, then suddenly 'jump' by several units to recover the lost
* increments. This seems to happen, e.g., inside virtual machines.
- * To address this issue, we do not use as a reference time interval just
- * bfqd->bfq_slice_idle, but bfqd->bfq_slice_idle plus a few jiffies. In
- * particular we add the minimum number of jiffies for which the filter
- * seems to be quite precise also in embedded systems and KVM/QEMU virtual
- * machines.
+ * To address this issue, in the filtering in (a) we do not use as a
+ * reference time interval just bfqd->bfq_slice_idle, but
+ * bfqd->bfq_slice_idle plus a few jiffies. In particular, we add the
+ * minimum number of jiffies for which the filter seems to be quite
+ * precise also in embedded systems and KVM/QEMU virtual machines.
*/
static unsigned long bfq_bfqq_softrt_next_start(struct bfq_data *bfqd,
struct bfq_queue *bfqq)
{
- return max(bfqq->last_idle_bklogged +
- HZ * bfqq->service_from_backlogged /
- bfqd->bfq_wr_max_softrt_rate,
- jiffies + nsecs_to_jiffies(bfqq->bfqd->bfq_slice_idle) + 4);
+ return max3(bfqq->soft_rt_next_start,
+ bfqq->last_idle_bklogged +
+ HZ * bfqq->service_from_backlogged /
+ bfqd->bfq_wr_max_softrt_rate,
+ jiffies + nsecs_to_jiffies(bfqq->bfqd->bfq_slice_idle) + 4);
}
/**
@@ -4014,10 +4056,15 @@ static void bfq_init_bfqq(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
bfqq->split_time = bfq_smallest_from_now();
/*
- * Set to the value for which bfqq will not be deemed as
- * soft rt when it becomes backlogged.
+ * To not forget the possibly high bandwidth consumed by a
+ * process/queue in the recent past,
+ * bfq_bfqq_softrt_next_start() returns a value at least equal
+ * to the current value of bfqq->soft_rt_next_start (see
+ * comments on bfq_bfqq_softrt_next_start). Set
+ * soft_rt_next_start to now, to mean that bfqq has consumed
+ * no bandwidth so far.
*/
- bfqq->soft_rt_next_start = bfq_greatest_from_now();
+ bfqq->soft_rt_next_start = jiffies;
/* first request is almost certainly seeky */
bfqq->seek_history = 1;