Re: [PATCH RFC 10/22] block, bfq: add full hierarchical scheduling and cgroups support

From	Paolo <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH RFC 10/22] block, bfq: add full hierarchical scheduling and cgroups support
Date	2016-04-25 22:40 +0200
Message-ID	<rrVsu-3wP-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <rqOjn-6D4-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rqOCK-75k-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <rqP5M-7go-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <rqZRv-7EE-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rrUmL-2Ic-35@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

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.
>

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

Thread

Re: [PATCH RFC 10/22] block, bfq: add full hierarchical scheduling  and cgroups support Paolo <paolo.valente@linaro.org> - 2016-04-20 11:40 +0200
  Re: [PATCH RFC 10/22] block, bfq: add full hierarchical scheduling  and cgroups support Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-04-22 20:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH RFC 10/22] block, bfq: add full hierarchical scheduling and cgroups support Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> - 2016-04-22 20:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH RFC 10/22] block, bfq: add full hierarchical scheduling  and cgroups support Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-04-22 20:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH RFC 10/22] block, bfq: add full hierarchical scheduling and cgroups support Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> - 2016-04-22 21:10 +0200
          Re: [PATCH RFC 10/22] block, bfq: add full hierarchical scheduling  and cgroups support Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-04-22 21:40 +0200
            Re: [PATCH RFC 10/22] block, bfq: add full hierarchical scheduling and cgroups support Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> - 2016-04-23 09:10 +0200
              Re: [PATCH RFC 10/22] block, bfq: add full hierarchical scheduling  and cgroups support Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-04-25 21:30 +0200
                Re: [PATCH RFC 10/22] block, bfq: add full hierarchical scheduling  and cgroups support Paolo <paolo.valente@linaro.org> - 2016-04-25 22:40 +0200

csiph-web