Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling

From	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling
Date	2016-01-22 15:50 +0100
Message-ID	<qTLce-5nI-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<qT53k-1s5-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <qTuO6-2vq-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qTvTQ-3bF-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <qTwdc-3k7-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 05:41:57PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:

[..]
> A simple approximation of IO cost such as fixed cost
> per IO + cost proportional to IO size would do a far better job than
> just depending on bandwidth or iops and that requires approximating
> two variables over time.  I'm not sure how easy / feasible that
> actually would be tho.

Hi Tejun,

"A fixed cost per IO sounds" like iops and "cost proportional to IO size"
sounds like bandwidth. I am wondering can we dynamically control both
bps and iops rate of cgroup based on cgroup weight and average bw/iops of
device queue. That way a cgroup can not get unfair share of disk neither
by throwing lots of small IOs, nor by sending down a small number of large
IOs.

Will that be good enough.

Thanks
Vivek

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-01-20 19:00 +0100
  Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> - 2016-01-20 20:10 +0100
    Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-01-20 20:40 +0100
      Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-01-20 20:50 +0100
        Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> - 2016-01-20 21:00 +0100
        Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> - 2016-01-20 22:20 +0100
          Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-01-20 22:40 +0100
      Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> - 2016-01-20 20:50 +0100
  Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-01-21 22:20 +0100
    Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-01-21 23:30 +0100
      Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-01-21 23:50 +0100
        Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-01-22 01:10 +0100
          Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-01-22 15:50 +0100
            Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> - 2016-01-22 17:00 +0100
              Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-01-22 19:10 +0100
                Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> - 2016-01-22 20:10 +0100
                Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-01-22 20:50 +0100
                Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> - 2016-01-22 21:10 +0100
            Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-01-22 19:00 +0100
              Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-01-22 19:10 +0100
                Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-01-22 20:20 +0100
        Re: [RFC 0/3] block: proportional based blk-throttling Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> - 2016-01-22 15:50 +0100

csiph-web