From: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: iowait boost is broken
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:33:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210610133358.GB30309@e120325.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YL+tDv/EL5ogf/0w@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 07:46:54PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 08:10:32PM +0100, Beata Michalska wrote:
> > So back to the expectations.
> > The main problem, as I see it, is what do we actually want to achieve with
> > the I/O boosting? Is it supposed to compensate the time lost while waiting
> > for the I/O request to be completed or is is supposed to optimize the rate
> > at which I/O requests are being made.
>
> The latter, you want to increase the race of submission.
>
> > Do we want to boost I/O bound tasks by
> > default, no limits applied or should we care about balancing performance
> > vs power ? And unless those expectations are clearly stated, we might not
> > get too far with any changes, really.
>
> You want to not increase power beyond what is needed to match the rate
> of processing I suppose.
This is what I took as a baseline for my playground.
This tough means we will be are operating on some assumptions (unless we go for
some major rework) and that boosting may not reach the highest level in some cases.
For those, I guess we will have to use another way to deal with performance.
Thanks for your comments.
---
BR
B.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-10 13:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-07 16:19 iowait boost is broken Joel Fernandes
2021-06-07 19:10 ` Beata Michalska
2021-06-08 9:26 ` Qais Yousef
2021-06-08 17:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-09 9:50 ` Quentin Perret
2021-06-10 15:28 ` Qais Yousef
2021-06-10 13:33 ` Beata Michalska [this message]
2021-06-08 19:09 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-06-10 13:30 ` Beata Michalska
2021-06-10 18:52 ` Joel Fernandes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210610133358.GB30309@e120325.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=beata.michalska@arm.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \
--cc=qperret@google.com \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.