Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Disk Scheduling In Linux Its really quite complex!

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Disk Scheduling In Linux Its really quite complex!"— Presentation transcript:

1 Disk Scheduling In Linux Its really quite complex!

2 My Goals Teach a little bit of Computer Science. Show that the easy stuff is hard in real life. BTW, Operating systems are cool!

3 How A Disk Works A disk is a bunch of data blocks. A disk has a disk head. Data can only be accessed when the head is on that block. Moving the head takes FOREVER. Data transfer is fast (once the disk head gets there).

4 The Problem Statement Suppose we have multiple requests for disk blocks …. Which should we access first? P.S. Yes, order does matter … a lot.

5 Formal Problem Statement Input: A set of requests. Input: The current disk head location. Input: Algorithm state (direction??) Output: The next disk block to get. P.S. Not the whole ordering, just the next one.

6 The Goals Maximize throughput –Operations per second. Maximize fairness –Whatever that means. Avoid Starvation –And very very long waits. Real Time Concerns –These can be life threatening (and bank accounts too!).

7 Whats Not Done Every Operating system assigns priorities to all sorts of things –Requests for RAM –Requests for the CPU –Requests for network access Few use disk request priority.

8 Why Talk About This Now? Because in the last year Linux has had three very different schedulers, and theyve been tested against each other.

9 A Pessimal Algorithm Choose the disk request furthest from the current disk head. This is known to be as bad as any algorithm without idle periods.

10 An Optimal Algorithm Chose the disk request closest to the disk head. Its Optimal!

11 Optimal Analyzed This is known to have the highest performance in operations per second. Its unfair to requests toward the edges of the disk. It allows for starvation.

12 First Come First Serve Serve the requests in their arrival order. –Its fair. –It avoid starvation. –Its medium lousy performance. –Some simple OSs use this.

13 Elevator Move back and forth, solving requests as you go. Performance –good Fairness –Files near the middle of the disk get 2x the attention.

14 Cyclic Elevator Move toward the bottom, solving requests as you go. When youve solved the lowest request, seek all the way to the highest request. –Performance penalty occurs here.

15 Cyclic Elevator Analyzed Its fair. Its starvation-proof. Its very good performance. –Almost as good as elevator. Its used in real life (and every textbook).

16 Deadline Scheduler Each request has a deadline. Service requests using cyclic elevator. When a deadline is threatened, skip directly to that request. For Real Time (which means xmms) Jens Axboe

17 Deadline Analyzed Gives Priority to Real Time Processes. Fair otherwise. No starvation –Unless a real time process goes wild.

18 Anticipatory Scheduling (The Idea) Developed by several people. Coded by Nick Piggin. Assume that an I/O request will be closely followed by another nearby one.

19 Anticipatory Scheduling (The Algorithm) After servicing a request … WAIT. –Yes, this means do nothing even though there is work to be done. If a nearby request occurs soon, service it. If not … cyclic elevator.

20 Anticiptory Scheduling Analyzed Fair No support for real time. No starvation. Makes assumptions about how processes work in real life. –Thats the idleness. –They better be right

21 Benchmarking the Anticipatory Scheduler Source:

22 Completely Fair Queuing (also by Jens) Real Time needs always come first Otherwise, no user should be able to hog the disk drive. Priorities are OK.

23 The CFQ Picture RT Q1 Q2 Q20 Dispatcher Disk Queue Disk Yes, Gabes art is better 10ms Valve

24 Analyzing CFQ Complex!!!!! Has Real Time support (Jens likes that). Fair, and fights disk hogs! –A new kind of fairness!! No starvation is possible. –Real time crazyness excepted. Allows for priorities –But no one knows how to assign them.

25 Benchmark #1 time (find kernel-tree -type f | xargs cat > /dev/null) Dead: 3 minutes 39 seconds CFQ: 5 minutes 7 seconds AS: 17 seconds

26 The Benchmark #2 for i in do time (find kernel-tree-$i -type f | xargs cat > /dev/null ) & done Dead: 3m56.791s CFQ: 5m50.233s AS: 0m53.087s

27 The Benchmark #3 time (cp 1-gig-file foo ; sync) AS: 1:22.36 CFQ: 1:25.54 Dead: 1:11.03

28 Benchmark #4 time ssh testbox xterm -e true Old: 62 seconds Dead: 14 seconds CFQ: 11 seconds AS: 12 seconds

29 Benchmark #5 While cat 512M-file > /dev/null Measure write-and-fsync -f -m 100 outfile Old: 6.4 seconds Dead: 7.7 seconds CFQ: 8.4 seconds AS: 11.9 seconds

30 The Winner is … Andrew Morton said, "the anticipatory scheduler is wiping the others off the map, and 2.4 is a disaster."

31 What You Learned In Real Operating Systems … –Performance is never obvious. –No one uses the textbook algorithm. –Benchmarking is everything. Theory is useful, if it helps you benchmark better. Linux is cool, since we can see the development process.


Download ppt "Disk Scheduling In Linux Its really quite complex!"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google