Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

Not to compound upon this again. However if BFQ isn't suitable to replace CFQ for high I/O workloads (I've yet to see 20k IOPS on any reasonably sized SAN (SC4020 / v5000, etc)), can't we at-least default BFQ to become the default I/O scheduler for people otherwise requesting CFQ? Paolo has had a

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

> Il giorno 14 ott 2016, alle ore 20:35, Tejun Heo 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

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

> Il giorno 14 ott 2016, alle ore 18:40, Tejun Heo ha scritto: > > Hello, Kyle. > > On Sat, Oct 08, 2016 at 06:15:14PM -0700, Kyle Sanderson wrote: >> How is this even a discussion when hard numbers, and trying any >> reproduction case easily reproduce the issues that CFQ

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

> Il giorno 06 ott 2016, alle ore 21:57, Shaohua Li ha scritto: > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 09:58:44AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: >> >>> Il giorno 05 ott 2016, alle ore 22:46, Shaohua Li ha scritto: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 09:47:19PM +0200, Paolo Valente

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

> Il giorno 06 ott 2016, alle ore 20:32, Vivek Goyal ha > scritto: > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 08:01:42PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: >> >>> Il giorno 06 ott 2016, alle ore 19:49, Vivek Goyal ha >>> scritto: >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 03:15:50PM

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

On 2016-10-06 08:50, Paolo Valente wrote: Il giorno 06 ott 2016, alle ore 13:57, Austin S. Hemmelgarn ha scritto: On 2016-10-06 07:03, Mark Brown wrote: On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 10:04:41AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Tejun Heo

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

> Il giorno 06 ott 2016, alle ore 09:58, Paolo Valente > ha scritto: > >> >> Il giorno 05 ott 2016, alle ore 22:46, Shaohua Li ha scritto: >> >> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 09:47:19PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: >>> Il giorno 05 ott 2016, alle ore

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

> Il giorno 06 ott 2016, alle ore 13:57, Austin S. Hemmelgarn > ha scritto: > > On 2016-10-06 07:03, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 10:04:41AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: >> I get

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 10:04:41AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > I get that bfq can be a good compromise on most desktop workloads and > > behave reasonably well for some server workloads with the slice > > expiration

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > I get that bfq can be a good compromise on most desktop workloads and > behave reasonably well for some server workloads with the slice > expiration mechanism but it really isn't an IO resource partitioning > mechanism. Not

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 09:47:19PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > > > Il giorno 05 ott 2016, alle ore 20:30, Shaohua Li ha scritto: > > > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:49:46AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> Hello, Paolo. > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:37:00PM +0200, Paolo

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 09:57:22PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > > > Il giorno 05 ott 2016, alle ore 21:08, Shaohua Li ha scritto: > > > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:30:53AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:49:46AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > >>> Hello, Paolo.

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

> Il giorno 05 ott 2016, alle ore 21:47, Paolo Valente > ha scritto: > >> >> Il giorno 05 ott 2016, alle ore 20:30, Shaohua Li ha scritto: >> >> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:49:46AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: >>> Hello, Paolo. >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:30:53AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:49:46AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, Paolo. > > > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:37:00PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > > > In this respect, for your generic, unpredictable scenario to make > > > sense,

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:49:46AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Paolo. > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:37:00PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > > In this respect, for your generic, unpredictable scenario to make > > sense, there must exist at least one real system that meets the > > requirements

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

Hello, Paolo. On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:37:00PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > In this respect, for your generic, unpredictable scenario to make > sense, there must exist at least one real system that meets the > requirements of such a scenario. Or, if such a real system does not > yet exist, it

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

> Il giorno 05 ott 2016, alle ore 15:12, Vivek Goyal ha > scritto: > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:37:00PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > > [..] >> Anyway, to avoid going on with trying speculations and arguments, let >> me retry with a practical proposal. BFQ is out there,

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:37:00PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: [..] > Anyway, to avoid going on with trying speculations and arguments, let > me retry with a practical proposal. BFQ is out there, free. Let's > just test, measure and check whether we have already a solution to > the problems

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

> Il giorno 04 ott 2016, alle ore 22:27, Tejun Heo ha scritto: > > Hello, Paolo. > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:29:48PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: >>> Hmm... I think we already discussed this but here's a really simple >>> case. There are three unknown workloads A, B and C

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

Hello, Paolo. On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:29:48PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > > Hmm... I think we already discussed this but here's a really simple > > case. There are three unknown workloads A, B and C and we want to > > give A certain best-effort guarantees (let's say around 80% of the > >

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

> Il giorno 04 ott 2016, alle ore 21:14, Tejun Heo ha scritto: > > Hello, Paolo. > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:02:47PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: >> That's exactly what BFQ has succeeded in doing in all the tests >> devised so far. Can you give me a concrete example for

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

Hello, Paolo. On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:02:47PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > That's exactly what BFQ has succeeded in doing in all the tests > devised so far. Can you give me a concrete example for which I can > try with BFQ and with any other mechanism you deem better. If > you are right,

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

> Il giorno 04 ott 2016, alle ore 17:56, Tejun Heo ha scritto: > > Hello, Vivek. > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:28:05AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 02:20:19PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> The background is we don't have an ioscheduler for

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

Hello, Vivek. On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:28:05AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 02:20:19PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The background is we don't have an ioscheduler for blk-mq yet, so we can't > > prioritize processes/cgroups. > > So this is an interim

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 02:20:19PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote: > Hi, > > The background is we don't have an ioscheduler for blk-mq yet, so we can't > prioritize processes/cgroups. So this is an interim solution till we have ioscheduler for blk-mq? > This patch set tries to add basic arbitration >