Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1458204
| Path | csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!news.unit0.net!news.panservice.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod |
|---|---|
| From | Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com> |
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFD] I/O scheduling in blk-mq |
| Date | Mon, 08 Aug 2016 22:10:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <s3Z22-63f-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <s3Tzk-2sm-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Dkim-Signature | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=osandov-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=8KUQqzhvCgiXHHIvqwUcHjUSZDmcpyOmegNRKk9OQgc=; b=KF5XtBYq6Ll74ZQy3fBJznn57x5Al46RofP5q+yLIcOWNljnDKeexcMugIdrBjbiDY +0J4xw4r8AvWrDgORI+Ff8rL3N/kGau7pgaPP44cZcOOuN56fkLQgGPt57Dag4pe4jf8 Sw8Raej06OpVe2SH5m6rx6Kh00tYQofUXI55Q4Z1U9d/ARGxo7qFcO5GPXeTK5vxR1n4 0vRtVc78fOf7jUr07Aw3XrqR4lMEZmrAmRxwVisyzSe3UlMU0tbcEoIMtjTwP01sNz3y orfTT/SIrh3SLZnsdmR3akUoWOL+dxDQiEOWp4yObNCqbCaO7Kg4vz7mFVOeewiQinoi q5Yw== |
| X-Google-Dkim-Signature | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=8KUQqzhvCgiXHHIvqwUcHjUSZDmcpyOmegNRKk9OQgc=; b=O2DwR+1ifznA0Aq0/XfMAyDLwlmH/Y+Pr8w+6v0tLUZmNvazvrrb/eVbm2HK+/zrZ0 vdoVRGnwuh0/MTrH/EMPCSzdrBmFp6rVz7ukWBd5q82fkngtYPaHqO+ZCcfkYi4QaY8F IvEqbGg8O6DFV7cFIlFFympMG3rnNzwrsAYfU9Ph+bNg1hKUqoYo0XUL2wY4WAnpECqa D3dNB/S0Lpwlbi2ENhJQZ9mOrRxfwb2IHXOSm0tz9wNG4rRuFa0pYh/elw0MCNuXsZ8O YKif8SuxbSDxxJn7L0A8wiuL31cCVgG2n6nGlhHp/Z7nTBua4QaU/ayypdM0Th1yuQSC tkkA== |
| X-Gm-Message-State | AEkoousV87PMY1cWTLxwMmmmQscuZ7DAHT8WIdOOTVzVnPfJpxrg2HV2atDiQybG+6tNGGXd |
| X-Received | by 10.98.100.67 with SMTP id y64mr165789890pfb.84.1470686945838; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 13:09:05 -0700 (PDT) |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Content-Disposition | inline |
| User-Agent | Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) |
| Sender | robomod@news.nic.it |
| List-ID | <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org> |
| X-Mailing-List | linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org |
| Approved | robomod@news.nic.it |
| Lines | 68 |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
| X-Original-Cc | Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, broonie@kernel.org |
| X-Original-Date | Mon, 8 Aug 2016 13:09:03 -0700 |
| X-Original-Message-ID | <20160808200903.GA16275@vader.DHCP.thefacebook.com> |
| X-Original-References | <42e6f39b-7b47-963f-69b8-2cf61e889339@linaro.org> |
| X-Original-Sender | linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org |
| Xref | csiph.com linux.kernel:1458204 |
Show key headers only | View raw
On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 04:09:56PM +0200, Paolo wrote: > Hi Jens, Tejun, Christoph, all, > AFAIK blk-mq does not yet feature I/O schedulers. In particular, there > is no scheduler providing strong guarantees in terms of > responsiveness, latency for time-sensitive applications and bandwidth > distribution. > > For this reason, I'm trying to port BFQ to blk-mq, or to develop > something simpler if even a reduced version of BFQ proves to be too > heavy (this project is supported by Linaro). If you are willing to > provide some feedback in this respect, I would like to ask for > opinions/suggestions on the following two matters, and possibly to > open a more general discussion on I/O scheduling in blk-mq. > > 1) My idea is to have an independent instance of BFQ, or in general of > the I/O scheduler, executed for each software queue. Then there would > be no global scheduling. The drawback of no global scheduling is that > each process cannot get more than 1/M of the total throughput of the > device, if M is the number of software queues. But, if I'm not > mistaken, it is however unfeasible to give a process more than 1/M of > the total throughput, without lowering the throughput itself. In fact, > giving a process more than 1/M of the total throughput implies serving > its software queue, say Q, more than the others. The only way to do > it is periodically stopping the service of the other software queues > and dispatching only the requests in Q. But this would reduce > parallelism, which is the main way how blk-mq achieves a very high > throughput. Are these considerations, and, in particular, one > independent I/O scheduler per software queue, sensible? > > 2) To provide per-process service guarantees, an I/O scheduler must > create per-process internal queues. BFQ and CFQ use I/O contexts to > achieve this goal. Is something like that (or exactly the same) > available also in blk-mq? If so, do you have any suggestion, or link to > documentation/code on how to use what is available in blk-mq? > > Thanks, > Paolo Hi, Paolo, I've been working on I/O scheduling for blk-mq with Jens for the past few months (splitting time with other small projects), and we're making good progress. Like you noticed, the hard part isn't really grafting a scheduler interface onto blk-mq, it's maintaining good scalability while providing adequate fairness. We're working towards a scheduler more like deadline and getting the architectural issues worked out. The goal is some sort of fairness across all queues. The scheduler-per-software-queue model won't hold up so well if we have a slower device with an I/O-hungry process on one CPU and an interactive process on another CPU. The issue I'm working through now is that on blk-mq, we only have as many `struct request`s as the hardware has tags, so on a device with a limited queue depth, it's really hard to do any sort of intelligent scheduling. The solution for that is switching over to working with `struct bio`s in the software queues instead, which abstracts away the hardware capabilities. I have some work in progress at https://github.com/osandov/linux/tree/blk-mq-iosched, but it's not yet at feature-parity. After that, I'll be back to working on the scheduling itself. The vague idea is to amortize global scheduling decisions, but I don't have much concrete code behind that yet. Thanks! -- Omar
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFD] I/O scheduling in blk-mq Paolo <paolo.valente@linaro.org> - 2016-08-08 16:20 +0200 Re: [RFD] I/O scheduling in blk-mq Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org> - 2016-08-08 18:40 +0200 Re: [RFD] I/O scheduling in blk-mq Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com> - 2016-08-08 22:10 +0200
csiph-web