On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 10:20 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 17:51 +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote: > > This series of patches of dm-ioband now includes "The bio tracking mechanism," > > which has been posted individually to this mailing list. > > This makes it easy for anybody to control the I/O bandwidth even when > > the I/O is one of delayed-write requests. > > During the Containers mini-summit at OLS, it was mentioned that there > are at least *FOUR* of these I/O controllers floating around. Have you > talked to the other authors? (I've cc'd at least one of them). > > We obviously can't come to any kind of real consensus with people just > tossing the same patches back and forth. > > -- Dave Hi Dave, I have been tracking the memory controller patches for a while which spurred my interest in cgroups and prompted me to start working on I/O bandwidth controlling mechanisms. This year I have had several opportunities to discuss the design challenges of i/o controllers with the NEC and VALinux Japan teams (CCed), most recently last month during the Linux Foundation Japan Linux Symposium, where we took advantage of Andrew Morton's visit to Japan to do some brainstorming on this topic. I will try so summarize what was discussed there (and in the Linux Storage & Filesystem Workshop earlier this year) and propose a hopefully acceptable way to proceed and try to get things started. This RFC ended up being a bit longer than I had originally intended, but hopefully it will serve as the start of a fruitful discussion. As you pointed out, it seems that there is not much consensus building going on, but that does not mean there is a lack of interest. To get the ball rolling it is probably a good idea to clarify the state of things and try to establish what we are trying to accomplish. *** State of things in the mainstream kernel<BR> The kernel has had somewhat adavanced I/O control capabilities for quite some time now: CFQ. But the current CFQ has some problems: - I/O priority can be set by PID, PGRP, or UID, but... - ...all the processes that fall within the same class/priority are scheduled together and arbitrary grouping are not possible. - Buffered I/O is not handled properly. - CFQ's IO priority is an attribute of a process that affects all devices it sends I/O requests to. In other words, with the current implementation it is not possible to assign per-device IO priorities to a task. *** Goals 1. Cgroups-aware I/O scheduling (being able to define arbitrary groupings of processes and treat each group as a single scheduling entity). 2. Being able to perform I/O bandwidth control independently on each device. 3. I/O bandwidth shaping. 4. Scheduler-independent I/O bandwidth control. 5. Usable with stacking devices (md, dm and other devices of that ilk). 6. I/O tracking (handle buffered and asynchronous I/O properly). The list of goals above is not exhaustive and it is also likely to contain some not-so-nice-to-have features so your feedback would be appreciated. 1. & 2.- Cgroups-aware I/O scheduling (being able to define arbitrary groupings of processes and treat each group as a single scheduling identity) We obviously need this because our final goal is to be able to control the IO generated by a Linux container. The good news is that we already have the cgroups infrastructure so, regarding this problem, we would just have to transform our I/O bandwidth controller into a cgroup subsystem. This seems to be the easiest part, but the current cgroups infrastructure has some limitations when it comes to dealing with block devices: impossibility of creating/removing certain control structures dynamically and hardcoding of subsystems (i.e. resource controllers). This makes it difficult to handle block devices that can be hotplugged and go away at any time (this applies not only to usb storage but also to some SATA and SCSI devices). To cope with this situation properly we would need hotplug support in cgroups, but, as suggested before and discussed in the past (see (0) below), there are some limitations. Even in the non-hotplug case it would be nice if we could treat each block I/O device as an independent resource, which means we could do things like allocating I/O bandwidth on a per-device basis. As long as performance is not compromised too much, adding some kind of basic hotplug support to cgroups is probably worth it. (0) http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/21/12 3. & 4. & 5. - I/O bandwidth shaping & General design aspects The implementation of an I/O scheduling algorithm is to a certain extent influenced by what we are trying to achieve in terms of I/O bandwidth shaping, but, as discussed below, the required accuracy can determine the layer where the I/O controller has to reside. Off the top of my head, there are three basic operations we may want perform: - I/O nice prioritization: ionice-like approach. - Proportional bandwidth scheduling: each process/group of processes has a weight that determines the share of bandwidth they receive. - I/O limiting: set an upper limit to the bandwidth a group of tasks can use. If we are pursuing a I/O prioritization model à la CFQ the temptation is to implement it at the elevator layer or extend any of the existing I/O schedulers. There have been several proposals that extend either the CFQ scheduler (see (1), (2) below) or the AS scheduler (see (3) below). The problem with these controllers is that they are scheduler dependent, which means that they become unusable when we change the scheduler or when we want to control stacking devices which define their own make_request_fn function (md and dm come to mind). It could be argued that the physical devices controlled by a dm or md driver are likely to be fed by traditional I/O schedulers such as CFQ, but these I/O schedulers would be running independently from each other, each one controlling its own device ignoring the fact that they part of a stacking device. This lack of information at the elevator layer makes it pretty difficult to obtain accurate results when using stacking devices. It seems that unless we can make the elevator layer aware of the topology of stacking devices (possibly by extending the elevator API?) evelator-based approaches do not constitute a generic solution. Here onwards, for discussion purposes, I will refer to this type of I/O bandwidth controllers as elevator-based I/O controllers. A simple way of solving the problems discussed in the previous paragraph is to perform I/O control before the I/O actually enters the block layer either at the pagecache level (when pages are dirtied) or at the entry point to the generic block layer (generic_make_request()). Andrea's I/O throttling patches stick to the former variant (see (4) below) and Tsuruta-san and Takahashi-san's dm-ioband (see (5) below) take the later approach. The rationale is that by hooking into the source of I/O requests we can perform I/O control in a topology-agnostic and elevator-agnostic way. I will refer to this new type of I/O bandwidth controller as block layer I/O controller. By residing just above the generic block layer the implementation of a block layer I/O controller becomes relatively easy, but by not taking into account the characteristics of the underlying devices we might risk underutilizing them. For this reason, in some cases it would probably make sense to complement a generic I/O controller with elevator-based I/O controller, so that the maximum throughput can be squeezed from the physical devices. (1) Uchida-san's CFQ-based scheduler: http://lwn.net/Articles/275944/ (2) Vasily's CFQ-based scheduler: http://lwn.net/Articles/274652/ (3) Naveen Gupta's AS-based scheduler: http://lwn.net/Articles/288895/ (4) Andrea Righi's i/o bandwidth controller (I/O throttling):http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.containers/5975 (5) Tsuruta-san and Takahashi-san's dm-ioband: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.virtualization/6581 6.- I/O tracking This is arguably the most important part, since to perform I/O control we need to be able to determine where the I/O is coming from. Reads are trivial because they are served in the context of the task that generated the I/O. But most writes are performed by pdflush, kswapd, and friends so performing I/O control just in the synchronous I/O path would lead to large inaccuracy. To get this right we would need to track ownership all the way up to the pagecache page. In other words, it is necessary to track who is dirtying pages so that when they are written to disk the right task is charged for that I/O. Fortunately, such tracking of pages is one of the things the existing memory resource controller is doing to control memory usage. This is a clever observation which has a useful implication: if the rather imbricated tracking and accounting parts of the memory resource controller were split the I/O controller could leverage the existing infrastructure to track buffered and asynchronous I/O. This is exactly what the bio-cgroup (see (6) below) patches set out to do. It is also possible to do without I/O tracking. For that we would need to hook into the synchronous I/O path and every place in the kernel where pages are dirtied (see (4) above for details). However controlling the rate at which a cgroup can generate dirty pages seems to be a task that belongs in the memory controller not the I/O controller. As Dave and Paul suggested its probably better to delegate this to the memory controller. In fact, it seems that Yamamoto-san is cooking some patches that implement just that: dirty balancing for cgroups (see (7) for details). Another argument in favor of I/O tracking is that not only block layer I/O controllers would benefit from it, but also the existing I/O schedulers and the elevator-based I/O controllers proposed by Uchida-san, Vasily, and Naveen (Yoshikawa-san, who is CCed, and myself are working on this and hopefully will be sending patches soon). (6) Tsuruta-san and Takahashi-san's I/O tracking patches: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/8/4/90 (7) Yamamoto-san dirty balancing patches: http://lwn.net/Articles/289237/ *** How to move on As discussed before, it probably makes sense to have both a block layer I/O controller and a elevator-based one, and they could certainly cohabitate. As discussed before, all of them need I/O tracking capabilities so I would like to suggest the plan below to get things started: - Improve the I/O tracking patches (see (6) above) until they are in mergeable shape. - Fix CFQ and AS to use the new I/O tracking functionality to show its benefits. If the performance impact is acceptable this should suffice to convince the respective maintainer and get the I/O tracking patches merged. - Implement a block layer resource controller. dm-ioband is a working solution and feature rich but its dependency on the dm infrastructure is likely to find opposition (the dm layer does not handle barriers properly and the maximum size of I/O requests can be limited in some cases). In such a case, we could either try to build a standalone resource controller based on dm-ioband (which would probably hook into generic_make_request) or try to come up with something new. - If the I/O tracking patches make it into the kernel we could move on and try to get the Cgroup extensions to CFQ and AS mentioned before (see (1), (2), and (3) above for details) merged. - Delegate the task of controlling the rate at which a task can generate dirty pages to the memory controller. This RFC is somewhat vague but my feeling is that we build some consensus on the goals and basic design aspects before delving into implementation details. I would appreciate your comments and feedback. - Fernando -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
