Re: drop bfq scheduler, instead use mq-deadline across the board

2020-06-30 Thread Tom Seewald
> I'm not convinced it's the domain of an IO scheduler to be involved, > rather than it being explicit UX intended by the desktop environment. > Seems to me the desktop environment is in a better position to know > what users expect. Well wouldn't bfq just be enforcing the bandwidth weights, if

Re: drop bfq scheduler, instead use mq-deadline across the board

2020-06-30 Thread Chris Murphy
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 6:02 PM Tom Seewald wrote: > > I forgot to mention that bfq appears to be the only IO scheduler that > supports cgroups-v2 IO controllers [1]. Perhaps I am wrong, but I wasn't able > to find documentation indicating that mq-deadline is cgroup-aware, at the > very least

Re: drop bfq scheduler, instead use mq-deadline across the board

2020-06-30 Thread Tom Seewald
I forgot to mention that bfq appears to be the only IO scheduler that supports cgroups-v2 IO controllers [1]. Perhaps I am wrong, but I wasn't able to find documentation indicating that mq-deadline is cgroup-aware, at the very least it's not documented in the official deadline tunables section

Re: drop bfq scheduler, instead use mq-deadline across the board

2020-06-30 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 07:28:53PM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 17:23:16 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 04:25:23PM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 15:01:24 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > >

Re: drop bfq scheduler, instead use mq-deadline across the board

2020-06-30 Thread Ankur Sinha
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 17:23:16 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 04:25:23PM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 15:01:24 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783 > > > > > > The main argument is that for

Re: drop bfq scheduler, instead use mq-deadline across the board

2020-06-30 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 04:25:23PM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 15:01:24 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783 > > > > The main argument is that for typical and varied workloads in Fedora, > > mostly on consumer hardware, we should

Re: drop bfq scheduler, instead use mq-deadline across the board

2020-06-30 Thread Ankur Sinha
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 15:01:24 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783 > > The main argument is that for typical and varied workloads in Fedora, > mostly on consumer hardware, we should use mq-deadline scheduler > rather than either none or bfq. > > It may

Re: drop bfq scheduler, instead use mq-deadline across the board

2020-06-30 Thread Michael Catanzaro
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:44 am, Tom Seewald wrote: In case you find it useful, Paolo has posted his own results from testing IO schedulers on Linux [1][2] as well as the scripts he used to generate the load [3]. I don't claim that these results have been independently verified or that they

Re: drop bfq scheduler, instead use mq-deadline across the board

2020-06-29 Thread Tom Seewald
> It's super annoying for me to post, because benchmarks drive me crazy, > and yet here I am posting one - this is almost like self flagellation > to paste this... > > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article=linux-56-nvme;... > > None of these benchmarks are representative of a generic

Re: drop bfq scheduler, instead use mq-deadline across the board

2020-06-29 Thread Chris Murphy
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 9:45 PM Tom Seewald wrote: > > > The latter but considering they're a broad variety of workloads I > > think it's misleading to call them server workloads as if that's one > > particular type of thing, or not applicable to a desktop under IO > > pressure. Why? (a) they're

Re: drop bfq scheduler, instead use mq-deadline across the board

2020-06-29 Thread Tom Seewald
> The latter but considering they're a broad variety of workloads I > think it's misleading to call them server workloads as if that's one > particular type of thing, or not applicable to a desktop under IO > pressure. Why? (a) they're using consumer storage devices (b) these > are real workloads

Re: drop bfq scheduler, instead use mq-deadline across the board

2020-06-29 Thread Chris Murphy
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:24 PM Tom Seewald wrote: > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783 > > > > The main argument is that for typical and varied workloads in Fedora, > > mostly on consumer hardware, we should use mq-deadline scheduler > > rather than either none or bfq. > > >

Re: drop bfq scheduler, instead use mq-deadline across the board

2020-06-29 Thread Tom Seewald
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783 > > The main argument is that for typical and varied workloads in Fedora, > mostly on consumer hardware, we should use mq-deadline scheduler > rather than either none or bfq. > > It may be true most folks with NVMe won't see anything bad with

Re: drop bfq scheduler, instead use mq-deadline across the board

2020-06-29 Thread Chris Murphy
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:38 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:01 PM Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783 >> >> The main argument is that for typical and varied workloads in Fedora, >> mostly on consumer hardware, we should use

Re: drop bfq scheduler, instead use mq-deadline across the board

2020-06-29 Thread Richard Shaw
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:01 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783 > > The main argument is that for typical and varied workloads in Fedora, > mostly on consumer hardware, we should use mq-deadline scheduler > rather than either none or bfq. > > It may be