[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 0/4] [RFC] Another proportional weight IO controller
Hi Vivek,

Sorry for late reply.

> > > Do you have any benchmark results?
> > > I'm especially interested in the followings:
> > > - Comparison of disk performance with and without the I/O controller patch.
> >
> > If I dynamically disable the bio control, then I did not observe any
> > impact on performance. Because in that case practically it boils down
> > to just an additional variable check in __make_request().
> >
> Oh.., I understood your question wrong. You are looking for what's the
> performance penalty if I enable the IO controller on a device.

Yes, that is what I want to know.

> I have not done any extensive benchmarking. If I run two dd commands
> without controller, I get 80MB/s from disk (roughly 40 MB for each task).
> With bio group enabled (default token=2000), I was getting total BW of
> roughly 68 MB/s.
> I have not done any performance analysis or optimizations at this point of
> time. I plan to do that once we have some sort of common understanding about
> a particular approach. There are so many IO controllers floating, right now
> I am more concerned if we can all come to a common platform.

I understood the reason of posting the patch well.

> Ryo, do you still want to stick to two level scheduling? Given the problem
> of it breaking down underlying scheduler's assumptions, probably it makes
> more sense to the IO control at each individual IO scheduler.

I don't want to stick to it. I'm considering implementing dm-ioband's
algorithm into the block I/O layer experimentally.

Ryo Tsuruta

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-20 10:21    [W:0.534 / U:4.804 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site