linux-kernel - IOPS based scheduler (Was: Re: [PATCH 18/21] blkcg: move blkio_group

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: <20120403153736.GI5913@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:37:36 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Tao Ma <tm@....ma>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, axboe@...nel.dk, ctalbott@...gle.com,
	rni@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: IOPS based scheduler (Was: Re: [PATCH 18/21] blkcg: move
 blkio_group_conf->weight to cfq)

On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 06:41:37AM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
> On 04/03/2012 06:25 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 06:20:10AM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
> > 
> > [..]
> >>> Yeah, just add config and stat files prefixed with the name of the new
> >>> blkcg policy.
> >> OK, I will add a new config file for it.
> > 
> > Only if CFQ could be modified to add one iops mode, flippable through a
> > sysfs tunable, things will be much simpler. You will not have to add a
> > new IO scheduler, no new configuration/stat files in blkcg (which is
> > already crowded now).
> > 
> > I don't think anybody has shown the code that why CFQ can't be modified
> > to support iops mode.
> Yes, I have thought of it, but it seems to me that time slice is deeply
> involved within the cfq(even current cfq's iops mode has used time slice
> to calculate). So I don't think it is feasible for me to change it. And
> cfq works perfectly well for sas/sata environment and the code is quite
> stable, more codes and more complicate algorithm does mean more bugs. So
> I guess a new iops based scheduler is easy and not intrusive for the
> user(since he can choose whether to use it or not).

Ok, let me take one step back.

- What's the goal of iops based scheduler. In what kind of workload and
  storage it is going to help.

- Can't we just set the slice_idle=0 and "quantum" to some high value
  say "64" or "128" and achieve similar results to iops based scheduler?

In theory, above will cut down on idling and try to provide fairness in
terms of time. I thought fairness in terms of time is most fair. The
most common problem is measurement of time is not attributable to
individual queue in an NCQ hardware. I guess that throws time measurement
of out the window until and unless we have a better algorithm to measure
time in NCQ environment.

I guess then we can just replace time with number of requests dispatched
from a process queue. Allow it to dispatch requests for some time and
then schedule it out and put it back on service tree and charge it 
according to its weight.

This all works only if we have right workload. The workloads which are
not doing dependent reads and can keep the disk busy continuously. If
there is think time involved, and we do not idle, process will lose its
share and whole scheme of trying to differentiate between processes will
become ineffective.

So if you have come with a better algorith which can keep track of iops
without idling and still provide service differentiation for common 
workloads, it will be interesting. 

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/