From: Paolo <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@gmail.com>,
Arianna Avanzini <avanzini.arianna@gmail.com>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
ulf.hansson@linaro.org, linus.walleij@linaro.org,
broonie@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 10/22] block, bfq: add full hierarchical scheduling and cgroups support
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 22:30:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <571E7E63.6010103@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160425192436.GE7822@mtj.duckdns.org>
Il 25/04/2016 21:24, Tejun Heo ha scritto:
> Hello, Paolo.
>
Hi
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 09:07:47AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> There is certainly something I don’t know here, because I don’t
>> understand why there is also a workqueue containing root-group I/O
>> all the time, if the only process doing I/O belongs to a different
>> (sub)group.
>
> Hmmm... maybe metadata updates?
>
That's what I thought in the first place. But one half or one third of
the IOs sounded too much for metadata (the percentage varies over time
during the test). And root-group IOs are apparently large. Here is an
excerpt from the output of
grep -B 1 insert_request trace
kworker/u8:4-116 [002] d... 124.349971: 8,0 I W 3903488
+ 1024 [kworker/u8:4]
kworker/u8:4-116 [002] d... 124.349978: 8,0 m N cfq409A
/ insert_request
--
kworker/u8:4-116 [002] d... 124.350770: 8,0 I W 3904512
+ 1200 [kworker/u8:4]
kworker/u8:4-116 [002] d... 124.350780: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/seq_write insert_request
--
kworker/u8:4-116 [002] d... 124.363911: 8,0 I W 3905712
+ 1888 [kworker/u8:4]
kworker/u8:4-116 [002] d... 124.363916: 8,0 m N cfq409A
/ insert_request
--
kworker/u8:4-116 [002] d... 124.364467: 8,0 I W 3907600
+ 352 [kworker/u8:4]
kworker/u8:4-116 [002] d... 124.364474: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/seq_write insert_request
--
kworker/u8:4-116 [002] d... 124.369435: 8,0 I W 3907952
+ 1680 [kworker/u8:4]
kworker/u8:4-116 [002] d... 124.369439: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/seq_write insert_request
--
kworker/u8:4-116 [002] d... 124.369441: 8,0 I W 3909632
+ 560 [kworker/u8:4]
kworker/u8:4-116 [002] d... 124.369442: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/seq_write insert_request
--
kworker/u8:4-116 [002] d... 124.373299: 8,0 I W 3910192
+ 1760 [kworker/u8:4]
kworker/u8:4-116 [002] d... 124.373301: 8,0 m N cfq409A
/ insert_request
--
kworker/u8:4-116 [002] d... 124.373519: 8,0 I W 3911952
+ 480 [kworker/u8:4]
kworker/u8:4-116 [002] d... 124.373522: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/seq_write insert_request
--
kworker/u8:4-116 [002] d... 124.381936: 8,0 I W 3912432
+ 1728 [kworker/u8:4]
kworker/u8:4-116 [002] d... 124.381937: 8,0 m N cfq409A
/ insert_request
>> Anyway, if this is expected, then there is no reason to bother you
>> further on it. In contrast, the actual problem I see is the
>> following. If one third or half of the bios belong to a different
>> group than the writer that one wants to isolate, then, whatever
>> weight is assigned to the writer group, we will never be able to let
>> the writer get the desired share of the time (or of the bandwidth
>> with bfq and all quasi-sequential workloads). For instance, in the
>> scenario that you told me to try, the writer will never get 50% of
>> the time, with any scheduler. Am I missing something also on this?
>
> While a worker may jump across different cgroups, the IOs are still
> coming from somewhere and if the only IO generator on the machine is
> the test dd, the bios from that cgroup should dominate the IOs. I
> think it'd be helpful to investigate who's issuing the root cgroup
> IOs.
>
Ok (if there is some quick way to get this information without
instrumenting the code, then any suggestion or pointer is welcome).
Thanks,
Paolo
> Thanks.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-25 20:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 103+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-01 22:12 [PATCH RFC 00/22] Replace the CFQ I/O Scheduler with BFQ Paolo Valente
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 01/22] block, cfq: remove queue merging for close cooperators Paolo Valente
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 02/22] block, cfq: remove close-based preemption Paolo Valente
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 03/22] block, cfq: remove deep seek queues logic Paolo Valente
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 04/22] block, cfq: remove SSD-related logic Paolo Valente
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 05/22] block, cfq: get rid of hierarchical support Paolo Valente
2016-02-10 23:04 ` Tejun Heo
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 06/22] block, cfq: get rid of queue preemption Paolo Valente
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 07/22] block, cfq: get rid of workload type Paolo Valente
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 08/22] block, cfq: get rid of latency tunables Paolo Valente
2016-02-10 23:05 ` Tejun Heo
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 09/22] block, cfq: replace CFQ with the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler Paolo Valente
2016-02-11 22:22 ` Tejun Heo
2016-02-12 0:35 ` Mark Brown
2016-02-17 15:57 ` Tejun Heo
2016-02-17 16:02 ` Mark Brown
2016-02-17 17:04 ` Tejun Heo
2016-02-17 18:13 ` Jonathan Corbet
2016-02-17 19:45 ` Tejun Heo
2016-02-17 19:56 ` Jonathan Corbet
2016-02-17 20:14 ` Tejun Heo
2016-02-17 9:02 ` Paolo Valente
2016-02-17 17:02 ` Tejun Heo
2016-02-20 10:23 ` Paolo Valente
2016-02-20 11:02 ` Paolo Valente
2016-03-01 18:46 ` Tejun Heo
2016-03-04 17:29 ` Linus Walleij
2016-03-04 17:39 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-03-04 18:10 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2016-03-11 11:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-03-11 13:38 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2016-03-05 12:18 ` Linus Walleij
2016-03-11 11:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-03-11 11:24 ` Nikolay Borisov
2016-03-11 11:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-03-11 14:53 ` Linus Walleij
2016-03-09 6:55 ` Paolo Valente
2016-04-13 19:54 ` Tejun Heo
2016-04-14 5:03 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-09 6:34 ` Paolo Valente
2016-04-13 20:41 ` Tejun Heo
2016-04-14 10:23 ` Paolo Valente
2016-04-14 16:29 ` Tejun Heo
2016-04-15 14:20 ` Paolo Valente
2016-04-15 15:08 ` Tejun Heo
2016-04-15 16:17 ` Paolo Valente
2016-04-15 19:29 ` Tejun Heo
2016-04-15 22:08 ` Paolo Valente
2016-04-15 22:45 ` Tejun Heo
2016-04-16 6:03 ` Paolo Valente
2016-04-15 14:49 ` Linus Walleij
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 10/22] block, bfq: add full hierarchical scheduling and cgroups support Paolo Valente
2016-02-11 22:28 ` Tejun Heo
2016-02-17 9:07 ` Paolo Valente
2016-02-17 17:14 ` Tejun Heo
2016-02-17 17:45 ` Tejun Heo
2016-04-20 9:32 ` Paolo
2016-04-22 18:13 ` Tejun Heo
2016-04-22 18:19 ` Paolo Valente
2016-04-22 18:41 ` Tejun Heo
2016-04-22 19:05 ` Paolo Valente
2016-04-22 19:32 ` Tejun Heo
2016-04-23 7:07 ` Paolo Valente
2016-04-25 19:24 ` Tejun Heo
2016-04-25 20:30 ` Paolo [this message]
2016-05-06 20:20 ` Paolo Valente
2016-05-12 13:11 ` Paolo
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 00/22] Replace the CFQ I/O Scheduler with BFQ Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 01/22] block, cfq: remove queue merging for close cooperators Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 02/22] block, cfq: remove close-based preemption Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 03/22] block, cfq: remove deep seek queues logic Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 04/22] block, cfq: remove SSD-related logic Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 05/22] block, cfq: get rid of hierarchical support Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 06/22] block, cfq: get rid of queue preemption Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 07/22] block, cfq: get rid of workload type Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 08/22] block, cfq: get rid of latency tunables Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 09/22] block, cfq: replace CFQ with the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 10/22] block, bfq: add full hierarchical scheduling and cgroups support Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 11/22] block, bfq: improve throughput boosting Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 12/22] block, bfq: modify the peak-rate estimator Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 13/22] block, bfq: add more fairness with writes and slow processes Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 14/22] block, bfq: improve responsiveness Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 15/22] block, bfq: reduce I/O latency for soft real-time applications Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 16/22] block, bfq: preserve a low latency also with NCQ-capable drives Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 17/22] block, bfq: reduce latency during request-pool saturation Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 18/22] block, bfq: add Early Queue Merge (EQM) Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 19/22] block, bfq: reduce idling only in symmetric scenarios Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 20/22] block, bfq: boost the throughput on NCQ-capable flash-based devices Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 21/22] block, bfq: boost the throughput with random I/O on NCQ-capable HDDs Paolo Valente
2016-07-27 16:13 ` [PATCH RFC V8 22/22] block, bfq: handle bursts of queue activations Paolo Valente
2016-07-28 16:50 ` [PATCH RFC V8 00/22] Replace the CFQ I/O Scheduler with BFQ Paolo
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 11/22] block, bfq: improve throughput boosting Paolo Valente
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 12/22] block, bfq: modify the peak-rate estimator Paolo Valente
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 13/22] block, bfq: add more fairness to boost throughput and reduce latency Paolo Valente
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 14/22] block, bfq: improve responsiveness Paolo Valente
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 15/22] block, bfq: reduce I/O latency for soft real-time applications Paolo Valente
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 16/22] block, bfq: preserve a low latency also with NCQ-capable drives Paolo Valente
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 17/22] block, bfq: reduce latency during request-pool saturation Paolo Valente
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 18/22] block, bfq: add Early Queue Merge (EQM) Paolo Valente
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 19/22] block, bfq: reduce idling only in symmetric scenarios Paolo Valente
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 20/22] block, bfq: boost the throughput on NCQ-capable flash-based devices Paolo Valente
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 21/22] block, bfq: boost the throughput with random I/O on NCQ-capable HDDs Paolo Valente
2016-02-01 22:12 ` [PATCH RFC 22/22] block, bfq: handle bursts of queue activations Paolo Valente
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=571E7E63.6010103@linaro.org \
--to=paolo.valente@linaro.org \
--cc=avanzini.arianna@gmail.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=fchecconi@gmail.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).