From: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>, broonie@kernel.org, lee.tibbert@gmail.com, oleksandr@natalenko.name Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX/IMPROVEMENT V2 0/3] three bfq fixes restoring service guarantees with random sync writes in bg Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:12:57 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <970115C1-6336-458D-BBD5-3E5054C4553D@linaro.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1504199166.666.11.camel@gmx.de> > Il giorno 31 ago 2017, alle ore 19:06, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> = ha scritto: >=20 > On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 15:42 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:46:28AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: >>> [SECOND TAKE, with just the name of one of the tester fixed] >>>=20 >>> Hi, >>> while testing the read-write unfairness issues reported by Mel, I >>> found BFQ failing to guarantee good responsiveness against heavy >>> random sync writes in the background, i.e., multiple writers doing >>> random writes and systematic fdatasync [1]. The failure was caused = by >>> three related bugs, because of which BFQ failed to guarantee to >>> high-weight processes the expected fraction of the throughput. >>>=20 >>=20 >> Queued on top of Ming's most recent series even though that's still a = work >> in progress. I should know in a few days how things stand. >=20 > It seems to have cured an interactivity issue I regularly meet during > kbuild final link/depmod phase of fat kernel kbuild, especially bad > with evolution mail usage during that on spinning rust. Can't really > say for sure given this is not based on measurement. >=20 Great! Actually, when I found these bugs, I thought also about the issues you told me you experienced with updatedb running. But then I forgot to tell you that these fixes might help. Thanks, Paolo > -Mike=20
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>, broonie@kernel.org, lee.tibbert@gmail.com, oleksandr@natalenko.name Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX/IMPROVEMENT V2 0/3] three bfq fixes restoring service guarantees with random sync writes in bg Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:12:57 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <970115C1-6336-458D-BBD5-3E5054C4553D@linaro.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1504199166.666.11.camel@gmx.de> > Il giorno 31 ago 2017, alle ore 19:06, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> ha scritto: > > On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 15:42 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:46:28AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: >>> [SECOND TAKE, with just the name of one of the tester fixed] >>> >>> Hi, >>> while testing the read-write unfairness issues reported by Mel, I >>> found BFQ failing to guarantee good responsiveness against heavy >>> random sync writes in the background, i.e., multiple writers doing >>> random writes and systematic fdatasync [1]. The failure was caused by >>> three related bugs, because of which BFQ failed to guarantee to >>> high-weight processes the expected fraction of the throughput. >>> >> >> Queued on top of Ming's most recent series even though that's still a work >> in progress. I should know in a few days how things stand. > > It seems to have cured an interactivity issue I regularly meet during > kbuild final link/depmod phase of fat kernel kbuild, especially bad > with evolution mail usage during that on spinning rust. Can't really > say for sure given this is not based on measurement. > Great! Actually, when I found these bugs, I thought also about the issues you told me you experienced with updatedb running. But then I forgot to tell you that these fixes might help. Thanks, Paolo > -Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-31 17:12 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2017-08-31 6:46 [PATCH BUGFIX/IMPROVEMENT V2 0/3] three bfq fixes restoring service guarantees with random sync writes in bg Paolo Valente 2017-08-31 6:46 ` [PATCH BUGFIX/IMPROVEMENT V2 1/3] block, bfq: make lookup_next_entity push up vtime on expirations Paolo Valente 2017-08-31 6:46 ` [PATCH BUGFIX/IMPROVEMENT V2 2/3] block, bfq: remove direct switch to an entity in higher class Paolo Valente 2017-08-31 6:46 ` [PATCH BUGFIX/IMPROVEMENT V2 3/3] block, bfq: guarantee update_next_in_service always returns an eligible entity Paolo Valente 2017-08-31 14:21 ` [PATCH BUGFIX/IMPROVEMENT V2 0/3] three bfq fixes restoring service guarantees with random sync writes in bg Jens Axboe 2017-08-31 14:42 ` Mel Gorman 2017-08-31 17:06 ` Mike Galbraith 2017-08-31 17:06 ` Mike Galbraith 2017-08-31 17:12 ` Paolo Valente [this message] 2017-08-31 17:12 ` Paolo Valente 2017-08-31 17:31 ` Mike Galbraith 2017-08-31 17:31 ` Mike Galbraith 2017-09-04 8:14 ` Mel Gorman 2017-09-04 8:55 ` Paolo Valente 2017-09-04 8:55 ` Paolo Valente 2017-09-04 9:07 ` Ming Lei
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=970115C1-6336-458D-BBD5-3E5054C4553D@linaro.org \ --to=paolo.valente@linaro.org \ --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \ --cc=broonie@kernel.org \ --cc=efault@gmx.de \ --cc=lee.tibbert@gmail.com \ --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \ --cc=oleksandr@natalenko.name \ --cc=ulf.hansson@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: linkBe 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.