[linux-lvm] Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests

[Nick Piggin]

Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:52:32, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>
>>Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>>
>
...

>>>Note that this is not an issue of '2 processes writing to 1 file', really.
>>>It's one process and pdflush writing the same dirty pages of the same file.
>>>
>>pdflush is a process though, that's all that matters.
>>
>
>I understand that when the two processes are unrelated, the patch as I
>sent it will do the wrong thing.
>
>But the thing is, you get this:
>
>- "dd" process writes requests
>- pdflush triggers to write dirty pages
>- too many pages are dirty so "dd" blocks as well to write synchronously
>- "dd" process triggers "queue full" but gets marked as "batching" so
>  can continue (get_request)
>- pdflush tries to submit one bio and gets blocked (get_request_wait)
>- "dd" continues, but that one bio from pdflush remains stuck for a while
>
>

The batching logic can probably all be ripped out with per
process limits. It's too complex anyway really.

>That's stupid, that one bio from pdflush should really be allowed on
>the queue, since "dd" is adding requests from the same source to it
>anyway.
>
>

But the whole reason it is getting blocked in the first place
is because your controller is sucking up all your requests.
The whole problem is not a problem if you use properly sized
queues.

I'm a bit surprised that it wasn't working well with a controller
queue depth of 64 and 128 nr_requests. I'll give you a per process
request limit patch to try in a minute.

>Perhaps writes from pdflush should be handled differently to prevent
>this specific case ?
>
>Say, if pdflush adds request #128, don't mark it as batching, but
>let it block. The next process will be the one marked as batching
>and can continue. If pdflush tries to add a request > 128, allow it,
>but _then_ block it.
>
>Would something like that work ? Would it be a good idea to never mark
>a pdflush process as batching, or would that have a negative impact
>for some things ?
>
>

It's hard to know. Maybe a better solution would be to allow pdflush
to be exempt from the limits entirely as long as it tries not to write
to congested queues (which is what it does)...