Hi Il giorno 16/apr/2016, alle ore 00:45, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: > 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. Very glad to hear that! > I'm gonna play with > cgroup settings and see how it actually behaves. > You have already done it two months ago, and ... found a bug! https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/11/731 I will try to spot and fix it (plus the other issues you have reported), and hopefully get back in a few days with a revised version of the patchset. Thanks, Paolo > 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
