Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 10:18 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > I guess that both the above issues may not be dramatic. In contrast, > the following last issue seems harder to address: BFQ uses two > different privileging schemes, one suitable for interactive > applications, and one suitable for soft

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 10:18 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > I guess that both the above issues may not be dramatic. In contrast, > the following last issue seems harder to address: BFQ uses two > different privileging schemes, one suitable for interactive > applications, and one suitable for soft

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

> Il giorno 25 apr 2017, alle ore 11:40, Juri Lelli ha > scritto: > > Hi, > > sorry if I jump into this interesting conversation, but I felt some people > might have missed this and might be interested as well (even if from a > slightly different POW). Let me Cc them

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

> Il giorno 25 apr 2017, alle ore 11:40, Juri Lelli ha > scritto: > > Hi, > > sorry if I jump into this interesting conversation, but I felt some people > might have missed this and might be interested as well (even if from a > slightly different POW). Let me Cc them (Patrick, Morten, Peter,

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

Hi, sorry if I jump into this interesting conversation, but I felt some people might have missed this and might be interested as well (even if from a slightly different POW). Let me Cc them (Patrick, Morten, Peter, Joel, Andres). On 19/04/17 09:02, Paolo Valente wrote: > > > Il giorno 19 apr

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

Hi, sorry if I jump into this interesting conversation, but I felt some people might have missed this and might be interested as well (even if from a slightly different POW). Let me Cc them (Patrick, Morten, Peter, Joel, Andres). On 19/04/17 09:02, Paolo Valente wrote: > > > Il giorno 19 apr

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 09:02 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > > Il giorno 19 apr 2017, alle ore 07:01, Bart Van Assche > > ha scritto: > > 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

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 09:02 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > > Il giorno 19 apr 2017, alle ore 07:01, Bart Van Assche > > ha scritto: > > 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 > >

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

> Il giorno 19 apr 2017, alle ore 07:01, Bart Van Assche > ha scritto: > > On 04/11/17 00:29, Paolo Valente wrote: >> >>> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 17:15, Bart Van Assche >>> ha scritto: >>> >>> On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 11:55

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

> Il giorno 19 apr 2017, alle ore 07:01, Bart Van Assche > ha scritto: > > On 04/11/17 00:29, Paolo Valente wrote: >> >>> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 17:15, Bart Van Assche >>> ha scritto: >>> >>> On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 11:55 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: That said, if you do always

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

On 04/11/17 00:29, Paolo Valente wrote: > >> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 17:15, Bart Van Assche >> 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

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

On 04/11/17 00:29, Paolo Valente wrote: > >> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 17:15, Bart Van Assche >> 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

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:55:43AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > > > Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 11:05, Andreas Herrmann > > ha scritto: > > > > Hi Paolo, > > > > I've looked at your WIP branch as of 4.11.0-bfq-mq-rc4-00155-gbce0818 > > and did some fio tests to

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:55:43AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > > > Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 11:05, Andreas Herrmann > > ha scritto: > > > > Hi Paolo, > > > > I've looked at your WIP branch as of 4.11.0-bfq-mq-rc4-00155-gbce0818 > > and did some fio tests to compare the behavior to

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 17:15, Bart Van Assche > 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,

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 17:15, Bart Van Assche > 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

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 11:55, Paolo Valente > ha scritto: > >> >> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 11:05, Andreas Herrmann >> ha scritto: >> >> Hi Paolo, >> >> I've looked at your WIP branch as of 4.11.0-bfq-mq-rc4-00155-gbce0818 >>

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 11:55, Paolo Valente > ha scritto: > >> >> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 11:05, Andreas Herrmann >> ha scritto: >> >> Hi Paolo, >> >> I've looked at your WIP branch as of 4.11.0-bfq-mq-rc4-00155-gbce0818 >> and did some fio tests to compare the behavior

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

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

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

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

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 11:05, Andreas Herrmann > ha scritto: > > Hi Paolo, > > I've looked at your WIP branch as of 4.11.0-bfq-mq-rc4-00155-gbce0818 > and did some fio tests to compare the behavior to CFQ. > > My understanding is that bfq-mq is supposed to be

Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 11:05, Andreas Herrmann > ha scritto: > > Hi Paolo, > > I've looked at your WIP branch as of 4.11.0-bfq-mq-rc4-00155-gbce0818 > and did some fio tests to compare the behavior to CFQ. > > My understanding is that bfq-mq is supposed to be merged sooner or >

bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

Hi Paolo, I've looked at your WIP branch as of 4.11.0-bfq-mq-rc4-00155-gbce0818 and did some fio tests to compare the behavior to CFQ. My understanding is that bfq-mq is supposed to be merged sooner or later and then it will be the only reasonable I/O scheduler with blk-mq for rotational

bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

Hi Paolo, I've looked at your WIP branch as of 4.11.0-bfq-mq-rc4-00155-gbce0818 and did some fio tests to compare the behavior to CFQ. My understanding is that bfq-mq is supposed to be merged sooner or later and then it will be the only reasonable I/O scheduler with blk-mq for rotational