[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
    On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 05:18:50PM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
    > Vivek Goyal wrote:
    > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 04:37:41PM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
    > >> Vivek Goyal wrote:
    > >>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 09:04:18PM +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
    > >>>> Hi All,
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I have got excellent results of dm-ioband, that controls the disk I/O
    > >>>> bandwidth even when it accepts delayed write requests.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> In this time, I ran some benchmarks with a high-end storage. The
    > >>>> reason was to avoid a performance bottleneck due to mechanical factors
    > >>>> such as seek time.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> You can see the details of the benchmarks at:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>> Hi Ryo,
    > >>>
    > >>> I had a query about dm-ioband patches. IIUC, dm-ioband patches will break
    > >>> the notion of process priority in CFQ because now dm-ioband device will
    > >>> hold the bio and issue these to lower layers later based on which bio's
    > >>> become ready. Hence actual bio submitting context might be different and
    > >>> because cfq derives the io_context from current task, it will be broken.
    > >>>
    > >>> To mitigate that problem, we probably need to implement Fernando's
    > >>> suggestion of putting io_context pointer in bio.
    > >>>
    > >>> Have you already done something to solve this issue?
    > >>>
    > >>> Secondly, why do we have to create an additional dm-ioband device for
    > >>> every device we want to control using rules. This looks little odd
    > >>> atleast to me. Can't we keep it in line with rest of the controllers
    > >>> where task grouping takes place using cgroup and rules are specified in
    > >>> cgroup itself (The way Andrea Righi does for io-throttling patches)?
    > >>>
    > >>> To avoid creation of stacking another device (dm-ioband) on top of every
    > >>> device we want to subject to rules, I was thinking of maintaining an
    > >>> rb-tree per request queue. Requests will first go into this rb-tree upon
    > >>> __make_request() and then will filter down to elevator associated with the
    > >>> queue (if there is one). This will provide us the control of releasing
    > >>> bio's to elevaor based on policies (proportional weight, max bandwidth
    > >>> etc) and no need of stacking additional block device.
    > >>>
    > >>> I am working on some experimental proof of concept patches. It will take
    > >>> some time though.
    > >>>
    > >>> I was thinking of following.
    > >>>
    > >>> - Adopt the Andrea Righi's style of specifying rules for devices and
    > >>> group the tasks using cgroups.
    > >>>
    > >>> - To begin with, adopt dm-ioband's approach of proportional bandwidth
    > >>> controller. It makes sense to me limit the bandwidth usage only in
    > >>> case of contention. If there is really a need to limit max bandwidth,
    > >>> then probably we can do something to implement additional rules or
    > >>> implement some policy switcher where user can decide what kind of
    > >>> policies need to be implemented.
    > >>>
    > >>> - Get rid of dm-ioband and instead buffer requests on an rb-tree on every
    > >>> request queue which is controlled by some kind of cgroup rules.
    > >>>
    > >>> It would be good to discuss above approach now whether it makes sense or
    > >>> not. I think it is kind of fusion of io-throttling and dm-ioband patches
    > >>> with additional idea of doing io-control just above elevator on the request
    > >>> queue using an rb-tree.
    > >> Thanks Vivek. All sounds reasonable to me and I think this is be the right way
    > >> to proceed.
    > >>
    > >> I'll try to design and implement your rb-tree per request-queue idea into my
    > >> io-throttle controller, maybe we can reuse it also for a more generic solution.
    > >> Feel free to send me your experimental proof of concept if you want, even if
    > >> it's not yet complete, I can review it, test and contribute.
    > >
    > > Currently I have taken code from bio-cgroup to implement cgroups and to
    > > provide functionality to associate a bio to a cgroup. I need this to be
    > > able to queue the bio's at right node in the rb-tree and then also to be
    > > able to take a decision when is the right time to release few requests.
    > >
    > > Right now in crude implementation, I am working on making system boot.
    > > Once patches are at least in little bit working shape, I will send it to you
    > > to have a look.
    > >
    > > Thanks
    > > Vivek
    > I wonder... wouldn't be simpler to just use the memory controller
    > to retrieve this information starting from struct page?
    > I mean, following this path (in short, obviously using the appropriate
    > interfaces for locking and referencing the different objects):
    > cgrp = page->page_cgroup->mem_cgroup->css.cgroup


    Ok, you are first retrieving cgroup associated page owner and then
    retrieving repsective iothrottle state using that
    cgroup, (cgroup_to_iothrottle). I have yet to dive deeper into cgroup
    data structures but does it work if iothrottle and memory controller
    are mounted on separate hierarchies?

    bio-cgroup guys are also doing similar thing in the sense retrieving
    relevant pointer through page and page_cgroup and use that to reach
    bio_cgroup strucutre. The difference is that they don't retrieve first
    css object of mem_cgroup instead they directly store the pointer of
    bio_cgroup in page_cgroup (When page is being charged in memory controller).

    While page is being charged, determine the bio_cgroup, associated with
    the task and store this info in page->page_cgroup->bio_cgroup.

    static inline struct bio_cgroup *bio_cgroup_from_task(struct task_struct
    return container_of(task_subsys_state(p, bio_cgroup_subsys_id),
    struct bio_cgroup, css);

    At any later point, one can look at bio and reach respective bio_cgroup


    Looks like now we are getting rid of page_cgroup pointer in "struct page"
    and we shall have to change the implementation accordingly.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-09-18 18:27    [W:0.046 / U:3.472 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site