|From:||Shaohua Li <email@example.com>|
|Subject:||[patch v2 0/8]block: An IOPS based ioscheduler|
|Date:||Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:02:13 +0800|
|Cc:||firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org|
An IOPS based I/O scheduler Flash based storage has some different characteristics against rotate disk. 1. no I/O seek. 2. read and write I/O cost usually is much different. 3. Time which a request takes depends on request size. 4. High throughput and IOPS, low latency. CFQ iosched does well for rotate disk, for example fair dispatching, idle for sequential read. It also has optimization for flash based storage (for item 1 above), but overall it's not designed for flash based storage. It's a slice based algorithm. Since flash based storage request cost is very low, and drive has big queue_depth is quite popular now which makes dispatching cost even lower, CFQ's slice accounting (jiffy based) doesn't work well. CFQ doesn't consider above item 2 & 3. FIOPS (Fair IOPS) ioscheduler is trying to fix the gaps. It's IOPS based, so only targets for drive without I/O seek. It's quite similar like CFQ, but the dispatch decision is made according to IOPS instead of slice. To illustrate the design goals, let's compare Noop and CFQ: Noop: best throughput; No fairness and high latency for sync. CFQ: lower throughput in some cases; fairness and low latency for sync. CFQ throughput is slow sometimes because it doesn't drive deep queue depth. FIOPS adopts some merits of CFQ, for example, fairness and bias sync workload. And it will be faster than CFQ in general. Note, if workload iodepth is low, there is no way to maintain fairness without performance sacrifice. Neither with CFQ. In such case, FIOPS will choose to not lose performance because flash based storage is usually very fast and expensive, performance is more important. The algorithm is simple. Drive has a service tree, and each task lives in the tree. The key into the tree is called vios (virtual I/O). Every request has vios, which is calculated according to its ioprio, request size and so on. Task's vios is the sum of vios of all requests it dispatches. FIOPS always selects task with minimum vios in the service tree and let the task dispatch request. The dispatched request's vios is then added to the task's vios and the task is repositioned in the sevice tree. Benchmarks results: SSD I'm using: max throughput read: 250m/s; write: 80m/s. max IOPS for 4k request read 40k/s; write 20k/s Latency and fairness tests are done in a desktop with one SSD and kernel parameter mem=1G. I'll compare noop, cfq and fiops in such workload. The test script and result is attached. Throughput tests are done in a 4 socket server and 8 SSD. I'll compare cfq and fiops. Latency -------------------------- latency-1read-iodepth32-test latency-8read-iodepth1-test latency-8read-iodepth4-test latency-32read-iodepth1-test latency-32read-iodepth4-test In all the tests, sync workloads have less latency with CFQ. FIOPS is worse than CFQ but much better than noop, because it doesn't do preempt and strictly follow 2.5:1 ratio of sync/async shares. If preemption is added (I had a debug patch - the last patch in the series), FIOPS will get similar result as CFQ. Fairness ------------------------- fairness-2read-iodepth8-test fairness-2read-iodepth32-test fairness-8read-iodepth4-test fairness-32read-iodepth2-test In the tests, thread group 2 should get about 2.33 more IOPS than thread group 1. The first test doesn't drive big io depth (drive io depth is 31). No ioscheduler is fair. The thread2/thread1 ratio is: 0.8(CFQ), 1(NOOP, FIOPS). In the last 3 tests, ratios with CFQ is 2.69, 2.78, 7.54; ratios with FIOPS is 2.33, 2.32, 2.32; NOOP always gives 1. FIOPS is more fair than CFQ, because CFQ uses jiffies to measure slice, 1 jiffy is too big for SSD and NCQ disk. Note in all the tests, NOOP and FIOPS can drive the peek IOPS, while CFQ can only drive peek IOPS for the second test. Throughput ------------------------ workload cfq fiops changes fio_sync_read_4k 3186.3 3304.0 3.6% fio_mediaplay_64k 3303.7 3372.0 2.0% fio_mediaplay_128k 3256.3 3405.7 4.4% fio_sync_read_rr_4k 4058.3 4071.3 0.3% fio_media_rr_64k 3946.0 4013.3 1.7% fio_sync_write_rr_64k_create 700.7 692.7 -1.2% fio_sync_write_64k_create 697.0 696.7 -0.0% fio_sync_write_128k_create 672.7 675.7 0.4% fio_sync_write_4k 667.7 682.3 2.1% fio_sync_write_64k 721.3 714.7 -0.9% fio_sync_write_128k 704.7 703.0 -0.2% fio_aio_randread_4k 534.3 656.7 18.6% fio_aio_randread_64k 1877.0 1881.3 0.2% fio_aio_randwrite_4k 306.0 366.0 16.4% fio_aio_randwrite_64k 481.0 485.3 0.9% fio_aio_randrw_4k 92.5 215.7 57.1% fio_aio_randrw_64k 352.0 346.3 -1.6% fio_tpcc 328/98 341.6/99.1 3.9%/1.1% fio_tpch 11576.3 11583.3 0.1% fio_mmap_randread_1k 6464.0 6472.0 0.1% fio_mmap_randread_4k 9321.3 9636.0 3.3% fio_mmap_randread_64k 11507.7 11420.0 -0.8% fio_mmap_randwrite_1k 68.1 63.4 -7.4% fio_mmap_randwrite_4k 261.7 250.3 -4.5% fio_mmap_randwrite_64k 414.0 414.7 0.2% fio_mmap_randrw_1k 65.8 64.5 -2.1% fio_mmap_randrw_4k 260.7 241.3 -8.0% fio_mmap_randrw_64k 424.0 429.7 1.3% fio_mmap_sync_read_4k 3235.3 3239.7 0.1% fio_mmap_sync_read_64k 3265.3 3208.3 -1.8% fio_mmap_sync_read_128k 3202.3 3250.3 1.5% fio_mmap_sync_read_rr_4k 2328.7 2368.0 1.7% fio_mmap_sync_read_rr_64k 2425.0 2416.0 -0.4% FIOPS is much better for some aio workloads, because it can drive deep queue depth. For workloads low queue depth already saturates the SSD, CFQ and FIOPS has no difference. For some mmap rand read/write workloads, CFQ is better. Again this is because CFQ has sync preemption. The debug patch, last one in the series, can fix the gap. Benchmark Summary ------------------------ FIOPS is more fair and has higher throughput. The throughput gain is because it can drive deeper queue depth. The fairness gain is because IOPS based accounting is more accurate. FIOPS is worse to bias sync workload and has lower throughput in some tests. This is fixable (like the debug patch mentioned above). But I didn't want to push the patch in, because it will starve async workload (The same with CFQ). When we talk about bias sync, I thought we should have a degree how much the bias should be. Starvation of async sounds not optimal too. CGROUP ----------------------- CGROUP isn't implemented yet. FIOPS is more fair, which is very important for CGROUP. Givin FIOPS uses vios to index service tree, implementing CGROUP should be relative easy. Hierarchy CGROUP can be easily implemented too, which CFQ is still lacking. The series are orgnized as: Patch 1: The core FIOPS. Patch 2: request read/write vios scale. This demontrates how the vios scale. Patch 3: sync/async scale. Patch 4: ioprio support Patch 5: a tweak to preserve deep iodepth task share Patch 6: a tweek to further bias sync task Patch 7: basic trace mesage support Patch 8: a debug patch to do sync workload preemption TODO: 1. request size based vios scale 2. cgroup support 3. automatically select default iosched according to QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT. Comments and suggestions are welcome! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Copyright © 2012, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds