On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 02:40:13PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:34:48AM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 02:05:35PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 09:49:16AM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Currently we have 2 iocontrollers. blk-throttling is bandwidth based. > > > > CFQ is > > > > weight based. It would be great there is a unified iocontroller for the > > > > two. > > > > And blk-mq doesn't support ioscheduler, leaving blk-throttling the only > > > > option > > > > for blk-mq. It's time to have a scalable iocontroller supporting both > > > > bandwidth/weight based control and working with blk-mq. > > > > > > > > blk-throttling is a good candidate, it works for both blk-mq and legacy > > > > queue. > > > > It has a global lock which is scaring for scalability, but it's not > > > > terrible in > > > > practice. In my test, the NVMe IOPS can reach 1M/s and I have all CPU > > > > run IO. Enabling > > > > blk-throttle has around 2~3% IOPS and 10% cpu utilization impact. I'd > > > > expect > > > > this isn't a big problem for today's workload. This patchset then try > > > > to make a > > > > unified iocontroller. I'm leveraging blk-throttling. > > > > > > > > The idea is pretty simple. If we know disk total bandwidth, we can > > > > calculate > > > > cgroup bandwidth according to its weight. blk-throttling can use the > > > > calculated > > > > bandwidth to throttle cgroup. Disk total bandwidth changes dramatically > > > > per IO > > > > pattern. Long history is meaningless. The simple algorithm in patch 1 > > > > works > > > > pretty well when IO pattern changes. > > > > > > > > This is a feedback system. If we underestimate disk total bandwidth, we > > > > assign > > > > less bandwidth to cgroup. cgroup will dispatch less IO and finally > > > > lower disk > > > > total bandwidth is estimated. To break the loop, cgroup bandwidth > > > > calculation > > > > always uses (1 + 1/8) * disk_bandwidth. Another issue is cgroup could be > > > > inactive. If inactive cgroup is accounted in, other cgroup will be > > > > assigned > > > > less bandwidth and so dispatch less IO, and disk total bandwidth drops > > > > further. > > > > To avoid the issue, we periodically check cgroups and exclude inactive > > > > ones. > > > > > > > > To test this, create two fio jobs and assign them different weight. You > > > > will > > > > see the jobs have different bandwidth roughly according to their weight. > > > > > > Patches look pretty small. Nice to see an implementation which will work > > > with faster devices and get away from dependency on cfq. > > > > > > How does one switch between weight based vs bandwidth based throttling? > > > What's the default. > > > > > > So this has been implemented at throttling layer. By default is weight > > > based throttling enabled or one needs to enable it explicitly. > > > > So in current implementation, only one of weight/bandwidth can be > > enabled. After one is enabled, switching to the other is forbidden. It > > should not be hard to enable switching. But mixing the two in one > > hierarchy sounds not trivial. > > So is this selection per device? Would be good if you also provide steps > to test it. I am going through code now and will figure out ultimately, > just that if you give steps, it makes it little easier.
Just uses: echo "8:16 200" > $TEST_CG/blkio.throttle.weight 200 is the weight > Is this one way selection system wide or per device? It's per device currently. Thanks, Shaohua
