> Il giorno 14 ott 2016, alle ore 20:35, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> ha scritto:
> Hello, Paolo.
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 07:13:41PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> That said, your 'thus' seems a little too strong: "bfq does not yet
>> handle fast SSDs, thus we need something else".  What about the
>> millions of devices (and people) still within 10-20 K IOPS, and
>> experiencing awful latencies and lack of bandwidth guarantees?
> I'm not objecting to any of that.

Ok, sorry for misunderstanding.  I'm just more and more confused about
why a readily available, and not proven wrong solution has not yet
been accepted, if everybody apparently acknowledges the problem.

>  My point just is that bfq, at least
> as currently implemented, is unfit for certain classes of use cases.

Absolutely correct.

>>> FWIW, it looks like the only way we can implement proportional control
>>> on highspeed ssds with acceptable overhead
>> Maybe not: as I wrote to Viveck in a previous reply, containing
>> pointers to documentation, we have already achieved twenty millions
>> of decisions per second with a prototype driving existing
>> proportional-share packet schedulers (essentially without
>> modifications).
> And that doesn't require idling and thus doesn't severely impact
> utilization?

Nope.  Packets are commonly assumed to be sent asynchronously.
I guess that discussing the validity of this assumption is out of the
scope of this thread.


>>> is somehow finding a way to
>>> calculate the cost of each IO and throttle IOs according to that while
>>> controlling for latency as necessary.  Slice scheduling with idling
>>> seems too expensive with highspeed devices with high io depth.
>> Yes, that's absolutely true.  I'm already thinking about an idleless
>> solution.  As I already wrote, I'm willing to help with scheduling in
>> blk-mq.  I hope there will be the opportunity to find some way to go
>> at KS.
> It'd be great to have a proportional control mechanism whose overhead
> is acceptable.  Unfortunately, we don't have one now and nothing seems
> right around the corner.  (Mostly) work-conserving throttling would be
> fiddlier to use but is something which is useful regardless of such
> proportional control mechanism and can be obtained relatively easily.
> I don't see why the two approaches would be mutually exclusive.
> Thanks.
> -- 
> tejun
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Paolo Valente
Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Informatiche e Matematiche
Via Campi 213/B
41125 Modena - Italy

Reply via email to