[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57174CA7.5000706@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:32:23 +0200
From: Paolo <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@...il.com>,
Arianna Avanzini <avanzini.arianna@...il.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ulf.hansson@...aro.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
broonie@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 10/22] block, bfq: add full hierarchical scheduling
and cgroups support
[Resending in plain text]
Il 11/02/2016 23:28, Tejun Heo ha scritto:
> Hello, > > On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:12:46PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote: >>
From: Arianna Avanzini <avanzini.arianna@...il.com> >> >> Complete
support for full hierarchical scheduling, with a cgroups >> interface.
The name of the added policy is bfq. >> >> Weights can be assigned
explicitly to groups and processes through the >> cgroups interface,
differently from what happens, for single >> processes, if the cgroups
interface is not used (as explained in the >> description of the
previous patch). In particular, since each node has >> a full scheduler,
each group can be assigned its own weight. > > * It'd be great if how
cgroup support is achieved is better > documented. > > * How's
writeback handled? > > * After all patches are applied, both
CONFIG_BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED and > CONFIG_CFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED exist. > > *
The default weight and weight range don't seem to follow the defined >
interface on the v2 hierarchy. The default value should be 100. > > *
With all patches applied, booting triggers a RCU context warning. >
Please build with lockdep and RCU debugging turned on and fix the >
issue. > > * I was testing on the v2 hierarchy with two top-level
cgroups one > hosting sequential workload and the other completely
random. While > they eventually converged to a reasonable state,
starting up the > sequential workload while the random workload was
running was > extremely slow. It crawled for quite a while.
This malfunction seems related to a blkcg behavior that I did not
expect: the sequential writer changes group continuously. It moves
from the root group to its correct group, and back. Here is the
output of
egrep 'insert_request|changed cgroup' trace
over a trace taken with the original version of cfq (seq_write is of
course the group of the writer):
kworker/u8:2-96 [000] d... 204.561086: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/seq_write changed cgroup
kworker/u8:2-96 [000] d... 204.561097: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/ changed cgroup
kworker/u8:2-96 [000] d... 204.561353: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/ insert_request
kworker/u8:2-96 [000] d... 204.561369: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/seq_write insert_request
kworker/u8:2-96 [000] d... 204.561379: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/seq_write insert_request
kworker/u8:2-96 [000] d... 204.566509: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/seq_write changed cgroup
kworker/u8:2-96 [000] d... 204.566517: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/ changed cgroup
kworker/u8:2-96 [000] d... 204.566690: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/ insert_request
kworker/u8:2-96 [000] d... 204.567203: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/seq_write insert_request
kworker/u8:2-96 [000] d... 204.567216: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/seq_write insert_request
kworker/u8:2-96 [000] d... 204.567328: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/seq_write insert_request
kworker/u8:2-96 [000] d... 204.571622: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/seq_write changed cgroup
kworker/u8:2-96 [000] d... 204.571640: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/ changed cgroup
kworker/u8:2-96 [000] d... 204.572021: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/ insert_request
kworker/u8:2-96 [000] d... 204.572463: 8,0 m N cfq96A
/seq_write insert_request
...
For reasons that I don't yet know, group changes are much more
frequent with bfq, which ultimately causes bfq to fail to isolate the
writer from the reader.
While I go on trying to understand why, could you please tell me
whether this fluctuation is normal, and/or point me to documentation from
which I can better understand this behavior, without bothering you
further?
Thanks,
Paolo
> > * And "echo 100 > io.weight" hung the writing process. > > Thanks. >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists