lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] block: BFQ default for single queue devices
On Thu 04-10-18 15:42:52, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 22:39 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
> > No, kernel build is, for evident reasons, one of the workloads I cared
> > most about. Actually, I tried to focus on all my main
> > kernel-development tasks, such as also git checkout, git merge, git
> > grep, ...
> >
> > According to my test results, with BFQ these tasks are at least as
> > fast as, or, in most system configurations, much faster than with the
> > other schedulers. Of course, at the same time the system also remains
> > responsive with BFQ.
> >
> > You can repeat these tests using one of my first scripts in the S
> > suite: kern_dev_tasks_vs_rw.sh (usually, the older the tests, the more
> > hypertrophied the names I gave :) ).
> >
> > I stopped sharing also my kernel-build results years ago, because I
> > went on obtaining the same, identical good results for years, and I'm
> > aware that I tend to show and say too much stuff.
>
> On my test setup building the kernel is slightly slower when using the BFQ
> scheduler compared to using scheduler "none" (kernel 4.18.12, NVMe SSD,
> single CPU with 6 cores, hyperthreading disabled). I am aware that the
> proposal at the start of this thread was to make BFQ the default for devices
> with a single hardware queue and not for devices like NVMe SSDs that support
> multiple hardware queues.
>
> What I think is missing is measurement results for BFQ on a system with
> multiple CPU sockets and against a fast storage medium. Eliminating
> the host lock from the SCSI core yielded a significant performance
> improvement for such storage devices. Since the BFQ scheduler locks and
> unlocks bfqd->lock for every dispatch operation it is very likely that BFQ
> will slow down I/O for fast storage devices, even if their driver only
> creates a single hardware queue.

Well, I'm not sure why that is missing. I don't think anyone proposed to
default to BFQ for such setup? Neither was anyone claiming that BFQ is
better in such situation... The proposal has been: Default to BFQ for slow
storage, leave it to deadline-mq otherwise.

Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-05 11:17    [W:0.111 / U:2.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site