Hello, Paolo. On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 12:08:44AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > Maybe the source of confusion is the fact that a simple sector-based, > proportional share scheduler always distributes total bandwidth > according to weights. The catch is the additional BFQ rule: random > workloads get only time isolation, and are charged for full budgets, > so as to not affect the schedule of quasi-sequential workloads. So, > the correct claim for BFQ is that it distributes total bandwidth > according to weights (only) when all competing workloads are > quasi-sequential. If some workloads are random, then these workloads > are just time scheduled. This does break proportional-share bandwidth > distribution with mixed workloads, but, much more importantly, saves > both total throughput and individual bandwidths of quasi-sequential > workloads. > > We could then check whether I did succeed in tuning timeouts and > budgets so as to achieve the best tradeoffs. But this is probably a > second-order problem as of now. Ah, I see. Yeah, that clears it up for me. I'm gonna play with cgroup settings and see how it actually behaves. Thanks for your patience. :) -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
