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


Groups > linux.kernel > #1625817

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

From Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq
Date 2017-04-19 07:10 +0200
Message-ID <txQ2l-7Bg-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <tuDuG-788-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <tuEh3-7s0-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tuJgK-2nZ-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <tuYz8-3XH-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On 04/11/17 00:29, Paolo Valente wrote:
>
>> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 17:15, Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@sandisk.com> ha scritto:
>>
>> On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 11:55 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>> That said, if you do always want maximum throughput, even at the
>>> expense of latency, then just switch off low-latency heuristics, i.e.,
>>> set low_latency to 0.  Depending on the device, setting slice_ilde to
>>> 0 may help a lot too (as well as with CFQ).  If the throughput is
>>> still low also after forcing BFQ to an only-throughput mode, then you
>>> hit some bug, and I'll have a little more work to do ...
>>
>> Has it been considered to make applications tell the I/O scheduler
>> whether to optimize for latency or for throughput? It shouldn't be that
>> hard for window managers and shells to figure out whether or not a new
>> application that is being started is interactive or not. This would
>> require a mechanism that allows applications to provide such information
>> to the I/O scheduler. Wouldn't that be a better approach than the I/O
>> scheduler trying to guess whether or not an application is an interactive
>> application?
>
> IMO that would be an (or maybe the) optimal solution, in terms of both
> throughput and latency.  We have even developed a prototype doing what
> you propose, for Android.  Unfortunately, I have not yet succeeded in
> getting support, to turn it into candidate production code, or to make
> a similar solution for lsb-compliant systems.

Hello Paolo,

What API was used by the Android application to tell the I/O scheduler 
to optimize for latency? Do you think that it would be sufficient if the 
application uses the ioprio_set() system call to set the I/O priority to 
IOPRIO_CLASS_RT?

Thanks,

Bart.

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


Thread

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com> - 2017-04-10 17:20 +0200
  Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> - 2017-04-11 09:40 +0200
    Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com> - 2017-04-19 07:10 +0200
      Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> - 2017-04-19 09:10 +0200
        Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com> - 2017-04-19 17:50 +0200

csiph-web