From: Paolo Valente <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 <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 09/22] block, cfq: replace CFQ with the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 18:17:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <700B77C8-CB01-41C3-96E7-ED2C0B5A85D0@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160415150835.GI12583@htj.duckdns.org>
Il giorno 15/apr/2016, alle ore 17:08, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> ha scritto:
> Hello, Paolo.
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 04:20:44PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>> It's actually a lot more difficult to answer that with bandwidth
>>> scheduling. Let's say cgroup A has 50% of disk time. Sure, there are
>>> inaccuracies, but it should be able to get close to the ballpark -
>>> let's be lax and say between 30% and 45% of raw sequential bandwidth.
>>> It isn't ideal but now imagine bandwidth based scheduling. Depending
>>> on what the others are doing, it may get 5% or even lower of the raw
>>> sequential bandwidth. It isn't isolating anything.
>>
>> Definitely. Nevertheless my point is still about the same: we have to
>> consider one system at a time. If the workload of the system is highly
>> variable and completely unpredictable, then it is hard to provide any
>> bandwidth guarantee with any solution.
>
> I don't think that is true with time based scheduling. If you
> allocate 50% of time, it'll get close to 50% of IO time which
> translates to bandwidth which is lower than 50% but still in the
> ballpark.
But this is the same minimal service guarantee that you get with BFQ
in any case. I'm sorry for being so confusing to not make this central
point clear :(
> That is very different from "we can't guarantee anything if
> the other workloads are highly variable”.
>
If you have 50% of the time, but
. you don’t know anything about your workload properties, and
. the device speed can vary by two orders of magnitude,
then you can't provide any bandwidth guarantee, with any scheduler. Of
course I'm neglecting the minimal, trivial guarantee "getting a fraction
of the minimum possible speed of the device".
If you have 50% of the time allocated for a quasi-sequential workload,
then bandwidth and latencies may vary by an uncontrollable 30 or 40%,
depending on what you and the other groups do.
With the same device, if you have 50% of the bandwidth allocated with
BFQ for a quasi-sequential workload, then you can provide bandwidth
and latencies that may vary at most by a (still uncontrollable) 3 or
4%, depending on what you and the other groups do.
This improvement is shown, e.g., in my--admittedly boring--numerical
example, and is confirmed by my experimental results so far.
> So, I get that for a lot of workload, especially interactive ones, IO
> patterns are quasi-sequential and bw based scheduling is beneficial
> and we don't care that much about fairness in general; however, it's
> problematic that it would make the behavior of proportional control
> quite surprising.
If I have somehow convinced you with what I wrote above, then I hope
we might agree that a surprising behavior of BFQ with cgroups would be
just a matter of bugs.
Thanks,
Paolo
>
>>> As I wrote before, as fairness isn't that important for normal
>>> scheduling, if empirical data show that bandwidth based scheduling is
>>> beneficial for most common workloads, that's awesome especially given
>>> that CFQ has plenty of issues. I don't think cgroup case is workable
>>> as currently implemented tho.
>>
>> I was thinking about some solution to achieve both goals. An option is
>> probably to let BFQ work in a double mode: sector-based within groups
>> and time-based among groups. However, I find it a little messy and
>> confusing.
>>
>> Other ideas/solutions? I have no better proposal at the moment :(
>
> No idea. I don't think isolation could work without time based
> scheduling at some level tho. :(
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-15 16:18 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 [this message]
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
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=700B77C8-CB01-41C3-96E7-ED2C0B5A85D0@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).