Il 06/05/2016 22:20, Paolo Valente ha scritto:
...
I can now confirm that, because of a little bug, a fraction ranging
from one third to half of the writeback bios for the writer is wrongly
associated with the root group. I'm sending a bugfix.
I'm retesting BFQ after this blk fix. If I understand correctly, now
you agree that BFQ is well suited for cgroups too, at least in
principle. So I will apply all your suggestions and corrections, and
submit a fresh patchset.
Hi,
this is just to report another apparently important blkio malfunction
(unless what I describe below is, for some reason, normal). This time
the malfunction is related to CFQ.
Even after applying my fix for bio cloning, CFQ may fail to guarantee
the expected resource-time sharing. It happens, for example, in the
following simple scenario with one sequential writer, in a group, and
one sequential reader, in another group. Both groups have the same
weight (and are memory.high limited to 16MB). Yet the writer is served
for only about 4% of the time, instead of 50%. Its bw is consequently
very low. Being this an unwanted accident, this percentage probably
varies with the characteristics of the system at hand.
The causes of the problem seem to be buried in CFQ logic, and do not
seem trivial. So I guess that solving this problem is not worth the
effort, as BFQ seems to have hope to replace CFQ altogether. I'm then
focusing on BFQ: it suffers from a similar problem, but because of a
rather simple reason.
Thanks,
Paolo
Thanks,
Paolo
Ok (if there is some quick way to get this information without
instrumenting the code, then any suggestion or pointer is welcome).
Thanks,
Paolo
Thanks.
--
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
