From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 649D7C3A5A7 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:56:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E27621883 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:56:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1567439819; bh=8jGuyB8P3nZGdTFXO6LUqTCNbYpDTLpLsjOKmyadqxA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=MGzfWxX67FsUa/UNdb8QdxUBMwGuE/QeEG8xEDkTHpO6oLPSKv14UOEmPrpASydap gBPWTYCgJwGXb5YZwls7mJJwpQ/BDv315CCTQbqInCc8PbUN2s+5cd+0CsOT9QtHBl cHNwwAj08pOvbR3Z9E2iRQ9xCXOiZ6M0qfYXJHX0= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725999AbfIBP46 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 11:56:58 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f195.google.com ([209.85.160.195]:36576 "EHLO mail-qt1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725830AbfIBP46 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 11:56:58 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f195.google.com with SMTP id o12so4476798qtf.3; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 08:56:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ExZmdHMEcHQFC7Ma718ILSpw2fAuwQcwKpYKAS2PKzU=; b=NBcl9afAeyIyBTtymn4baMsgwrbOW8VMDzEIyIBoQSV9u7cX7EYdGBRzis7ZX/ofpq Eiq5zWUgDS1gThudbRGxRuvdIUSdeecCrmUw079Af0u8M/E6FSRgmZHiOxsZjI5CBWG5 xzSIJhkMt5d+lPpg9TlKK47Qatxcd6yQmdLH3uhmLr5L0t+3NMIx6cxkrVGeZt5TP/mr vka8smR3nHLaVPmLT0w4ERN8kHG9ccOolEdLvs33DjgmNHa4AuZJzswXawbOwoVCsPKO ccmuA9Kklssq36S2AsrmMchUiCxpSabHThI0e8Siu5IQ46aUHsDqRbCh4qQ+x/QRQ5jw DNBg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ExZmdHMEcHQFC7Ma718ILSpw2fAuwQcwKpYKAS2PKzU=; b=EhUa36szXeqWF/7q8rK8Kw/VG+MRzJ+IQ7UP2tKFFkmnMSA9LuGrQromN9w6NroEv+ +OPPOLQ4BFKzXxQcUc0Dq10bR1HDm1pvE4vC1Wo6UbJxBBN0jznNpgh0HDEXCo7A+fV0 Ut+sef1WSyPtbIBzgMY3jG/lqsVEweR+qkhjyn3RBJlVu2FJLPyYTuPv4bbQvPpknhMd pz1TiofwXw0j3KPNKx/7cH4155hNgiZ8Peg69e8TntKvvg1F1LIUvOFhUrd8Ax7Frbq6 0XG/PZBKl/5ErRe/Zq/U/p9T0+3D+QySP1IzLDt8p1S3EeGYSqVALEr+g5OI4qF7UvRI V5DQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUHnq2MU9wGtQK4v2taed/0Cr+IDgAxqJh+6/o0X2J/Zhxa8MSb +EUxGDLHy0WHUzKJ1i2O96E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxZPoOm1dNg+OLvFCqScXvp0FQHGzmfZw2XcPn98Gg1Hxy3v5Li17BKVh+KBJvgoi5M7BmC1g== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:94a4:: with SMTP id j33mr18939469qvj.135.1567439816945; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 08:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c091:480::4a24]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q42sm8430483qtc.52.2019.09.02.08.56.55 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Sep 2019 08:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 08:56:52 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Paolo Valente Cc: Jens Axboe , newella@fb.com, clm@fb.com, Josef Bacik , dennisz@fb.com, Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , linux-kernel , linux-block , kernel-team@fb.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, kafai@fb.com, songliubraving@fb.com, yhs@fb.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHSET block/for-next] IO cost model based work-conserving porportional controller Message-ID: <20190902155652.GH2263813@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> References: <20190614015620.1587672-1-tj@kernel.org> <20190614175642.GA657710@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> <5A63F937-F7B5-4D09-9DB4-C73D6F571D50@linaro.org> <20190820151903.GH2263813@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> <9EB760CE-0028-4766-AE9D-6E90028D8579@linaro.org> <20190831065358.GF2263813@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> <88C7DC68-680E-49BB-9699-509B9B0B12A0@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <88C7DC68-680E-49BB-9699-509B9B0B12A0@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 05:45:50PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > Thanks for this extra explanations. It is a little bit difficult for > me to understand how the min/max teaks for exactly, but you did give > me the general idea. It just limits how far high and low the IO issue rate, measured in cost, can go. ie. if max is at 200%, the controller won't issue more than twice of what the cost model says 100% is. > Are these results in line with your expectations? If they are, then > I'd like to extend benchmarks to more mixes of workloads. Or should I > try some other QoS configuration first? They aren't. Can you please include the content of io.cost.qos and io.cost.model before each run? Note that partial writes to subset of parameters don't clear other parameters. Thanks. -- tejun