lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:30:53AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:49:46AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello, Paolo.
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:37:00PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
> > > In this respect, for your generic, unpredictable scenario to make
> > > sense, there must exist at least one real system that meets the
> > > requirements of such a scenario. Or, if such a real system does not
> > > yet exist, it must be possible to emulate it. If it is impossible to
> > > achieve this last goal either, then I miss the usefulness
> > > of looking for solutions for such a scenario.
> > >
> > > That said, let's define the instance(s) of the scenario that you find
> > > most representative, and let's test BFQ on it/them. Numbers will give
> > > us the answers. For example, what about all or part of the following
> > > groups:
> > > . one cyclically doing random I/O for some second and then sequential I/O
> > > for the next seconds
> > > . one doing, say, quasi-sequential I/O in ON/OFF cycles
> > > . one starting an application cyclically
> > > . one playing back or streaming a movie
> > >
> > > For each group, we could then measure the time needed to complete each
> > > phase of I/O in each cycle, plus the responsiveness in the group
> > > starting an application, plus the frame drop in the group streaming
> > > the movie. In addition, we can measure the bandwidth/iops enjoyed by
> > > each group, plus, of course, the aggregate throughput of the whole
> > > system. In particular we could compare results with throttling, BFQ,
> > > and CFQ.
> > >
> > > Then we could write resulting numbers on the stone, and stick to them
> > > until something proves them wrong.
> > >
> > > What do you (or others) think about it?
> >
> > That sounds great and yeah it's lame that we didn't start with that.
> > Shaohua, would it be difficult to compare how bfq performs against
> > blk-throttle?
>
> I had a test of BFQ. I'm using BFQ found at
> http://algogroup.unimore.it/people/paolo/disk_sched/sources.php. version is
> 4.7.0-v8r3. It's a LSI SSD, queue depth 32. I use default setting. fio script
> is:
>
> [global]
> ioengine=libaio
> direct=1
> readwrite=randread
> bs=4k
> runtime=60
> time_based=1
> file_service_type=random:36
> overwrite=1
> thread=0
> group_reporting=1
> filename=/dev/sdb
> iodepth=1
> numjobs=8
>
> [groupA]
> prio=2
>
> [groupB]
> new_group
> prio=6
>
> I'll change iodepth, numjobs and prio in different tests. result unit is MB/s.
>
> iodepth=1 numjobs=1 prio 4:4
> CFQ: 28:28 BFQ: 21:21 deadline: 29:29
>
> iodepth=8 numjobs=1 prio 4:4
> CFQ: 162:162 BFQ: 102:98 deadline: 205:205
>
> iodepth=1 numjobs=8 prio 4:4
> CFQ: 157:157 BFQ: 81:92 deadline: 196:197
>
> iodepth=1 numjobs=1 prio 2:6
> CFQ: 26.7:27.6 BFQ: 20:6 deadline: 29:29
>
> iodepth=8 numjobs=1 prio 2:6
> CFQ: 166:174 BFQ: 139:72 deadline: 202:202
>
> iodepth=1 numjobs=8 prio 2:6
> CFQ: 148:150 BFQ: 90:77 deadline: 198:197

More tests:

iodepth=8 numjobs=1 prio 2:6, group A has 50M/s limit
CFQ:51:207 BFQ: 51:45 deadline: 51:216

iodepth=1 numjobs=1 prio 2:6, group A bs=4k, group B bs=64k
CFQ:25:249 BFQ: 23:42 deadline: 26:251

Thanks,
Shaohua

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-10-05 21:10    [W:0.124 / U:2.700 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site