[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] Bio Throttling support for block IO controller
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 01:58:30PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Hi,
> Currently CFQ provides the weight based proportional division of bandwidth.
> People also have been looking at extending block IO controller to provide
> throttling/max bandwidth control.
> I have started to write the support for throttling in block layer on
> request queue so that it can be used both for higher level logical
> devices as well as leaf nodes. This patch is still work in progress but
> I wanted to post it for early feedback.
> Basically currently I have hooked into __make_request() function to
> check which cgroup bio belongs to and if it is exceeding the specified
> BW rate. If no, thread can continue to dispatch bio as it is otherwise
> bio is queued internally and dispatched later with the help of a worker
> thread.
> =====
> - Mount blkio controller
> mount -t cgroup -o blkio none /cgroup/blkio
> - Specify a bandwidth rate on particular device for root group. The format
> for policy is "<major>:<minor> <byes_per_second>".
> echo "8:16 1048576" > /cgroup/blkio/blkio.read_bps_device
> Above will put a limit of 1MB/second on reads happening for root group
> on device having major/minor number 8:16.
> - Run dd to read a file and see if rate is throttled to 1MB/s or not.
> # dd if=/mnt/common/zerofile of=/dev/null bs=4K count=1024 iflag=direct
> 1024+0 records in
> 1024+0 records out
> 4194304 bytes (4.2 MB) copied, 4.0001 s, 1.0 MB/s
> Limits for writes can be put using blkio.write_bps_device file.
> Open Issues
> ===========
> - Do we need to provide additional queue congestion semantics as we are
> throttling and queuing bios at request queue and probably we don't want
> a user space application to consume all the memory allocating bios
> and bombarding request queue with those bios.
> - How to handle the current blkio cgroup stats file and two policies
> in the background. If for some reason both throttling and proportional
> BW policies are operating on request queue, then stats will be very
> confusing.
> May be we can allow activating either throttling or proportional BW
> policy per request queue and we can create a /sys tunable to list and
> chose between policies (something like choosing IO scheduler). The
> only downside of this apporach is that user also need to be aware of
> the storage hierachy and activate right policy at each node/request
> queue.

Thinking more about it. The issue of stats from proportional bandwidth
controller and max bandwidth controller clobbering each other can
probably be solved by also specifying policy name with the stat. For
example, currently blkio.io_serviced, looks as follows.

# cat blkio.io_serviced
253:2 Read 61
253:2 Write 0
253:2 Sync 61
253:2 Async 0
253:2 Total 61

We can introduce one more field to specify policy for which this stats are as

# cat blkio.io_serviced
253:2 Read 61 throttle
253:2 Write 0 throttle
253:2 Sync 61 throttle
253:2 Async 0 throttle
253:2 Total 61 throttle

253:2 Read 61 proportional
253:2 Write 0 proportional
253:2 Sync 61 proportional
253:2 Async 0 proportional
253:2 Total 61 proportional

It will allow us following.

- Avoid two control policies overwritting each other's stats.
- Allow both policies (throttle, proportional) to be operational on
same request queue at the same time instead of forcing user to choose
- We don't have to introduce another /sys variable per request queue and
that will make life easier in terms of configuration.



 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-01 22:11    [W:0.064 / U:1.148 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site