linux-kernel - Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC][v2][patch 0/12][CFQ-cgroup]Yet another I/O bandwidth controlling subsystem for CGroups based on CFQ

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080425213702.GL19845@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc>
Date:	Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:37:02 +0200
From:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:	Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>
Cc:	s-uchida@...jp.nec.com, vtaras@...nvz.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
	m-takahashi@...jp.nec.com, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tom-sugawara@...jp.nec.com,
	devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC][v2][patch 0/12][CFQ-cgroup]Yet another I/O
	bandwidth controlling subsystem for CGroups based on CFQ

Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp> wrote:
[..]
> I'd like to see other benchmark results if anyone has.

Here are a few results. IO is issued in 4k chunks,
using O_DIRECT. Each process issues both reads
and writes. There are 60 such processes in each cgroup (except
where noted). Numbers given show the total count of io requests
(read and write) completed in 60 seconds. All processes use
the same partition, fs is ext3.

Vasily's scheduler:
------------------------------------------------------
| cgroup | s0                 | s1             |total |
|priority|  4                 |  4             |I/Os  |
------------------------------------------------------
|        | 24953              | 24062          | 49015|
|        | 29558(60 processes)| 14639 (30 proc)| 44197|
-------------------------------------------------------
|priority|    0               |  4             |      |
|        | 24221              | 24047          | 48268|
|priority|    1               |  4             |      |
|        | 24897              | 24509          | 49406|
|priority|    2               |  4             |      |
|        | 23295              | 23622          | 46917|
|priority|    0               |  7             |      |
|        | 22301              | 23373          | 45674|
-------------------------------------------------------

Satoshi's scheduler:
-------------------------------------------------------
| cgroup | s0                 | s1             |total |
|priority|  3                 |  3             |I/Os  |
|        | 25175              | 26463          | 51638|
|        | 26944 (60)         | 26698 (30)     | 53642|
-------------------------------------------------------
|priority|   0                |  3             |      |
|        | 60821              | 19846          | 80667|
|priority|   1                |  3             |      |
|        | 50608              | 25994          | 76602|
|priority|   2                |  3             |      |
|        | 32132              | 26641          | 58773|
|priority|   7                |  0             |      |
|        | 91387              | 12547          |103934|
------------------------------------------------------

So in short, i can't see any effect when i use Vasily's
i/o scheduler. Setting
echo 10 > /sys/block/hda/queue/iosched/cgrp_slice
did at least show different results in the 'prio 7 vs. prio 0 case'
(~29000 (prio 7) vs. 20000 (prio 0)).

What i found surprising is that Satoshis scheduler has
about twice of the io count...

Thanks, Florian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/