From 849369d6c66d3054688672f97d31fceb8e8230fb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: root Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 04:40:36 +0000 Subject: initial_commit --- Documentation/block/cfq-iosched.txt | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/block/cfq-iosched.txt (limited to 'Documentation/block/cfq-iosched.txt') diff --git a/Documentation/block/cfq-iosched.txt b/Documentation/block/cfq-iosched.txt new file mode 100644 index 00000000..e578feed --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/block/cfq-iosched.txt @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +CFQ ioscheduler tunables +======================== + +slice_idle +---------- +This specifies how long CFQ should idle for next request on certain cfq queues +(for sequential workloads) and service trees (for random workloads) before +queue is expired and CFQ selects next queue to dispatch from. + +By default slice_idle is a non-zero value. That means by default we idle on +queues/service trees. This can be very helpful on highly seeky media like +single spindle SATA/SAS disks where we can cut down on overall number of +seeks and see improved throughput. + +Setting slice_idle to 0 will remove all the idling on queues/service tree +level and one should see an overall improved throughput on faster storage +devices like multiple SATA/SAS disks in hardware RAID configuration. The down +side is that isolation provided from WRITES also goes down and notion of +IO priority becomes weaker. + +So depending on storage and workload, it might be useful to set slice_idle=0. +In general I think for SATA/SAS disks and software RAID of SATA/SAS disks +keeping slice_idle enabled should be useful. For any configurations where +there are multiple spindles behind single LUN (Host based hardware RAID +controller or for storage arrays), setting slice_idle=0 might end up in better +throughput and acceptable latencies. + +CFQ IOPS Mode for group scheduling +=================================== +Basic CFQ design is to provide priority based time slices. Higher priority +process gets bigger time slice and lower priority process gets smaller time +slice. Measuring time becomes harder if storage is fast and supports NCQ and +it would be better to dispatch multiple requests from multiple cfq queues in +request queue at a time. In such scenario, it is not possible to measure time +consumed by single queue accurately. + +What is possible though is to measure number of requests dispatched from a +single queue and also allow dispatch from multiple cfq queue at the same time. +This effectively becomes the fairness in terms of IOPS (IO operations per +second). + +If one sets slice_idle=0 and if storage supports NCQ, CFQ internally switches +to IOPS mode and starts providing fairness in terms of number of requests +dispatched. Note that this mode switching takes effect only for group +scheduling. For non-cgroup users nothing should change. -- cgit v1.2.3