On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 13:12 -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Flash based storage has its characteristics. CFQ has some optimizations > > for it, but not enough. The big problem is CFQ doesn't drive deep queue > > depth, which causes poor performance in some workloads. CFQ also isn't > > quite fair for fast storage (or further sacrifice of performance to get > > fairness) because it uses time based accounting. This isn't good for > > block cgroup. We need something different to make both performance and > > fairness good. > > > > A recent attempt is to use IOPS based ioscheduler for flash based > > storage. It's expected to drive deep queue depth (so better performance) > > and be more fairness (IOPS based accounting instead of time based). > > > > I'd like to discuss: > > - Do we really need it? Or the question is if it is popular real > > workloads drive deep io depth? > > - Should we have a separate ioscheduler for this or merge it to CFQ? > > - Other implementation discussions like differentiation of read/write > > requests and request size. Flash based storage doesn't like rotate > > storage, request cost of read/write and different request size usually > > is different. > > I think you need to define a couple things to really gain traction. > First, what is the target? Flash storage comes in many varieties, from > really poor performance to really, really fast. Are you aiming to > address all of them? If so, then let's see some numbers that prove that > you're basing your scheduling decisions on the right metrics for the > target storage device types. For fast storage, like SSD or PCIe flash card. > Second, demonstrate how one workload can negatively affect another. In > other words, justify the need for *any* I/O prioritization. Building on > that, you'd have to show that you can't achieve your goals with existing > solutions, like deadline or noop with bandwidth control. Basically some workloads with cgroup. bandwidth control doesn't cover all requirements for cgroup users, that's why we have cgroup for CFQ anyway. > Proportional > weight I/O scheduling is often sub-optimal when the device is not kept > busy. How will you address that? That's true. I choose better performance instead of better fairness if device isn't busy. Fast flash storage is expensive, I thought performance is more important in such case. Thanks, Shaohua -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
