Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1393547

Re: [PATCH 7/8] wbt: add general throttling mechanism

From Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH 7/8] wbt: add general throttling mechanism
Date 2016-05-03 17:40 +0200
Message-ID <ruKAz-29Y-53@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (2 earlier) <rsRZx-24p-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <rsZkm-mr-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <ruEYc-5FG-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <ruJuO-1iW-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <ruKqS-24h-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On 05/03/2016 09:22 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 03-05-16 08:23:27, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 05/03/2016 03:34 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> On Thu 28-04-16 12:53:50, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> 2) As far as I can see in patch 8/8, you have plugged the throttling above
>>>>>     the IO scheduler. When there are e.g. multiple cgroups with different IO
>>>>>     limits operating, this throttling can lead to strange results (like a
>>>>>     cgroup with low limit using up all available background "slots" and thus
>>>>>     effectively stopping background writeback for other cgroups)? So won't
>>>>>     it make more sense to plug this below the IO scheduler? Now I understand
>>>>>     there may be other problems with this but I think we should put more
>>>>>     though to that and provide some justification in changelogs.
>>>>
>>>> One complexity is that we have to do this early for blk-mq, since once you
>>>> get a request, you're already sitting on the hw tag. CoDel should actually
>>>> work fine at each hop, so hopefully this will as well.
>>>
>>> OK, I see. But then this suggests that any IO scheduling and / or
>>> cgroup-related throttling should happen before we get a request for blk-mq
>>> as well? And then we can still do writeback throttling below that layer?
>>
>> Not necessarily. For IO scheduling, basically we care about two parts:
>>
>> 1) Are you allowed to allocate the resources to queue some IO
>> 2) Are you allowed to dispatch
>
> But then it seems suboptimal to waste a relatively scarce resource (which
> HW tag is AFAIU) just because you happen to run from a cgroup that is
> bandwidth limited and thus are not allowed to dispatch?

For some cases, you are absolutely right, and #1 is the main one. For 
your case of QD=1, that's obviously the case. For SATA, it's a bit more 
grey zone, and for others (nvme, scsi, etc), it's not really a scarce 
resource so #2 is the bigger part of it.

-- 
Jens Axboe

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


Thread

Re: [PATCH 7/8] wbt: add general throttling mechanism Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> - 2016-04-28 13:10 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 7/8] wbt: add general throttling mechanism Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-04-28 21:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 7/8] wbt: add general throttling mechanism Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-04-28 21:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 7/8] wbt: add general throttling mechanism Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> - 2016-05-03 11:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 7/8] wbt: add general throttling mechanism Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-05-03 16:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 7/8] wbt: add general throttling mechanism Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> - 2016-05-03 17:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 7/8] wbt: add general throttling mechanism Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-05-03 17:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 7/8] wbt: add general throttling mechanism Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> - 2016-05-03 17:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 7/8] wbt: add general throttling mechanism Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2016-05-03 19:10 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 7/8] wbt: add general throttling mechanism Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2016-05-03 20:20 +0200
            Re: [PATCH 7/8] wbt: add general throttling mechanism Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2016-05-03 21:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 7/8] wbt: add general throttling mechanism Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> - 2016-05-03 17:50 +0200

csiph-web