diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'block/bfq-iosched.c')
| -rw-r--r-- | block/bfq-iosched.c | 81 |
1 files changed, 72 insertions, 9 deletions
diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c index a7ab0cb507332..47e6ec7427c44 100644 --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c @@ -209,15 +209,17 @@ static struct kmem_cache *bfq_pool; * interactive applications automatically, using the following formula: * duration = (R / r) * T, where r is the peak rate of the device, and * R and T are two reference parameters. - * In particular, R is the peak rate of the reference device (see below), - * and T is a reference time: given the systems that are likely to be - * installed on the reference device according to its speed class, T is - * about the maximum time needed, under BFQ and while reading two files in - * parallel, to load typical large applications on these systems. - * In practice, the slower/faster the device at hand is, the more/less it - * takes to load applications with respect to the reference device. - * Accordingly, the longer/shorter BFQ grants weight raising to interactive - * applications. + * In particular, R is the peak rate of the reference device (see + * below), and T is a reference time: given the systems that are + * likely to be installed on the reference device according to its + * speed class, T is about the maximum time needed, under BFQ and + * while reading two files in parallel, to load typical large + * applications on these systems (see the comments on + * max_service_from_wr below, for more details on how T is obtained). + * In practice, the slower/faster the device at hand is, the more/less + * it takes to load applications with respect to the reference device. + * Accordingly, the longer/shorter BFQ grants weight raising to + * interactive applications. * * BFQ uses four different reference pairs (R, T), depending on: * . whether the device is rotational or non-rotational; @@ -254,6 +256,60 @@ static int T_slow[2]; static int T_fast[2]; static int device_speed_thresh[2]; +/* + * BFQ uses the above-detailed, time-based weight-raising mechanism to + * privilege interactive tasks. This mechanism is vulnerable to the + * following false positives: I/O-bound applications that will go on + * doing I/O for much longer than the duration of weight + * raising. These applications have basically no benefit from being + * weight-raised at the beginning of their I/O. On the opposite end, + * while being weight-raised, these applications + * a) unjustly steal throughput to applications that may actually need + * low latency; + * b) make BFQ uselessly perform device idling; device idling results + * in loss of device throughput with most flash-based storage, and may + * increase latencies when used purposelessly. + * + * BFQ tries to reduce these problems, by adopting the following + * countermeasure. To introduce this countermeasure, we need first to + * finish explaining how the duration of weight-raising for + * interactive tasks is computed. + * + * For a bfq_queue deemed as interactive, the duration of weight + * raising is dynamically adjusted, as a function of the estimated + * peak rate of the device, so as to be equal to the time needed to + * execute the 'largest' interactive task we benchmarked so far. By + * largest task, we mean the task for which each involved process has + * to do more I/O than for any of the other tasks we benchmarked. This + * reference interactive task is the start-up of LibreOffice Writer, + * and in this task each process/bfq_queue needs to have at most ~110K + * sectors transferred. + * + * This last piece of information enables BFQ to reduce the actual + * duration of weight-raising for at least one class of I/O-bound + * applications: those doing sequential or quasi-sequential I/O. An + * example is file copy. In fact, once started, the main I/O-bound + * processes of these applications usually consume the above 110K + * sectors in much less time than the processes of an application that + * is starting, because these I/O-bound processes will greedily devote + * almost all their CPU cycles only to their target, + * throughput-friendly I/O operations. This is even more true if BFQ + * happens to be underestimating the device peak rate, and thus + * overestimating the duration of weight raising. But, according to + * our measurements, once transferred 110K sectors, these processes + * have no right to be weight-raised any longer. + * + * Basing on the last consideration, BFQ ends weight-raising for a + * bfq_queue if the latter happens to have received an amount of + * service at least equal to the following constant. The constant is + * set to slightly more than 110K, to have a minimum safety margin. + * + * This early ending of weight-raising reduces the amount of time + * during which interactive false positives cause the two problems + * described at the beginning of these comments. + */ +static const unsigned long max_service_from_wr = 120000; + #define RQ_BIC(rq) icq_to_bic((rq)->elv.priv[0]) #define RQ_BFQQ(rq) ((rq)->elv.priv[1]) @@ -1352,6 +1408,7 @@ static void bfq_update_bfqq_wr_on_rq_arrival(struct bfq_data *bfqd, if (old_wr_coeff == 1 && wr_or_deserves_wr) { /* start a weight-raising period */ if (interactive) { + bfqq->service_from_wr = 0; bfqq->wr_coeff = bfqd->bfq_wr_coeff; bfqq->wr_cur_max_time = bfq_wr_duration(bfqd); } else { @@ -3665,6 +3722,12 @@ static void bfq_update_wr_data(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq) bfqq->entity.prio_changed = 1; } } + if (bfqq->wr_coeff > 1 && + bfqq->wr_cur_max_time != bfqd->bfq_wr_rt_max_time && + bfqq->service_from_wr > max_service_from_wr) { + /* see comments on max_service_from_wr */ + bfq_bfqq_end_wr(bfqq); + } } /* * To improve latency (for this or other queues), immediately |