Hello! Here is the fourth revision of my patches to fix how bfq weights apply on cgroup throughput and on throughput of processes with different IO priorities. There are no changes since the previous version, I've just rebased the series and collected acks. I was hesitating for some time whether to submit the series including the last patch which I know regresses dbench benchmark when run with many clients. In the end I've decided to submit including that patch since most of testing happened with it applied, it is conceptually a correct thing to do, dbench with many clients isn't that much revelant benchmark, and there are workarounds available for the dbench regression. I still plan to work on that aspect of BFQ scheduling with Paolo so that we have better answer for dbench-like workloads with BFQ in the future. Jens, can you please merge the series? Changes since v3: * Rebased on top of 5.16-rc2 * Added Reviewed-by and Acked-by tags Changes since v2: * Rebased on top of current Linus' tree * Updated computation of scheduler tag proportions to work correctly even for processes within the same cgroup but with different IO priorities * Added comment roughly explaining why we limit tag depth * Added patch limiting waker / wakee detection in time so avoid at least the most obvious false positives * Added patch to log waker / wakee detections in blktrace for better debugging * Added patch properly account injected IO Changes since v1: * Fixed computation of appropriate proportion of scheduler tags for a cgroup to work with deeper cgroup hierarchies. Original cover letter: I was looking into why cgroup weights do not have any measurable impact on writeback throughput from different cgroups. This actually a regression from CFQ where things work more or less OK and weights have roughly the impact they should. The problem can be reproduced e.g. by running the following easy fio job in two cgroups with different weight: [writer] directory=/mnt/repro/ numjobs=1 rw=write size=8g time_based runtime=30 ramp_time=10 blocksize=1m direct=0 ioengine=sync I can observe there's no significat difference in the amount of data written from different cgroups despite their weights are in say 1:3 ratio. After some debugging I've understood the dynamics of the system. There are two issues: 1) The amount of scheduler tags needs to be significantly larger than the amount of device tags. Otherwise there are not enough requests waiting in BFQ to be dispatched to the device and thus there's nothing to schedule on. 2) Even with enough scheduler tags, writers from two cgroups eventually start contending on scheduler tag allocation. These are served on first come first served basis so writers from both cgroups feed requests into bfq with approximately the same speed. Since bfq prefers IO from heavier cgroup, that is submitted and completed faster and eventually we end up in a situation when there's no IO from the heavier cgroup in bfq and all scheduler tags are consumed by requests from the lighter cgroup. At that point bfq just dispatches lots of the IO from the lighter cgroup since there's no contender for disk throughput. As a result observed throughput for both cgroups are the same. This series fixes this problem by accounting how many scheduler tags are allocated for each cgroup and if a cgroup has more tags allocated than its fair share (based on weights) in its service tree, we heavily limit scheduler tag bitmap depth for it so that it is not be able to starve other cgroups from scheduler tags. Honza Previous versions: Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/20210712171146.12231-1-jack@xxxxxxx # v1 Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/20210715132047.20874-1-jack@xxxxxxx # v2 Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/20211006164110.10817-1-jack@xxxxxxx # v3
