Gui Jianfeng wrote: > Vivek Goyal wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 02:39:40PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote: >>> Vivek Goyal wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> Here is another posting for IO controller patches. Last time I had posted >>>> RFC patches for an IO controller which did bio control per cgroup. >>>> >>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/11/6/227 >>>> >>>> One of the takeaway from the discussion in this thread was that let us >>>> implement a common layer which contains the proportional weight scheduling >>>> code which can be shared by all the IO schedulers. >>>> >>> >>> Hi Vivek, >>> >>> I did some tests on my *old* i386 box(with two concurrent dd running), and notice >>> that IO Controller doesn't work fine in such situation. But it can work perfectly >>> in my *new* x86 box. I dig into this problem, and i guess the major reason is that >>> my *old* i386 box is too slow, it can't ensure two running ioqs are always backlogged. >> Hi Gui, >> >> Have you run top to see what's the percentage cpu usage. I suspect that >> cpu is not keeping up pace disk to enqueue enough requests. I think >> process might be blocked somewhere else so that it could not issue >> requests. >> >>> If that is the case, I happens to have a thought. when an ioq uses up it time slice, >>> we don't expire it immediately. May be we can give a piece of bonus time for idling >>> to wait new requests if this ioq's finish time and its ancestor's finish time are all >>> much smaller than other entities in each corresponding service tree. >> Have you tried it with "fairness" enabled? With "fairness" enabled, for >> sync queues I am waiting for one extra idle time slice "8ms" for queue >> to get backlogged again before I move to the next queue? >> >> Otherwise try to increase the idle time length to higher value say "12ms" >> just to see if that has any impact. >> >> Can you please also send me output of blkparse. It might give some idea >> how IO schedulers see IO pattern. > > Hi Vivek, > > Sorry for the late reply, I tried the "fairness" patch, it seems not working. > I'v also tried to extend the idle value, not working either. > The blktrace output is attached. It seems that the high priority ioq is deleting > from busy tree too often due to lacking of requests. My box is single CPU and CPU > speed is a little slow. May be two concurrent dd is contending CPU to submit > requests, that's the reason for not always backlogged for ioqs. Hi Vivek, Sorry for bothering, there were some configure errors when i tested, and got the improper result. The "fairness" patch seems to work fine now! It makes the high priority ioq *always* backlogged :) > >> Thanks >> Vivek >> >> >> > -- Regards Gui Jianfeng _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
