Message-ID: <20160513191245.GB8403@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 May 2016 15:12:45 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
Cc:	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tj@...nel.org, axboe@...com, jmoyer@...hat.com, Kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10]block-throttle: add low/high limit

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 05:16:30PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This patch set adds low/high limit for blk-throttle cgroup. The interface is
> io.low and io.high.
> 
> low limit implements best effort bandwidth/iops protection. If one cgroup
> doesn't reach its low limit, no other cgroups can use more bandwidth/iops than
> their low limit. cgroup without low limit is not protected. If there is cgroup
> with low limit but the cgroup doesn't reach low limit yet, the cgroup without
> low limit will be throttled to very low bandwidth/iops.

Hi Shaohua,

Can you please describe a little what problem are you solving and how
it is not solved with what we have right now.

Are you trying to guarantee minimum bandwidth to a cgroup? And approach
seems to be that specify minimum bandwidth required by a cgroup in
io.low and if cgroup does not get that bandwidth, other cgroups will
be automatically throttled and will not get more than their io.low
limit BW.

I am wondering how would one configure io.low limit? How would
application know what's the device IO capability and what part of
that bandwidth application requires. IOW, proportional control using
absolute limits is very tricky as it requires one to know device's
IO rate capabilities. To make it more complex, device throughput
is not fixed and varies based on badndwith. That mean, io.low also
somehow needs to adjust accorginly. And to me that means using a
notion of prio/weight works best instead of absolute limits.

In general you seem to be wanting to implement proportional control
outside CFQ so that it can be used with other block devices. I think
your previous idea of assigning weights to cgroup and translating
it automatically to some sort of control (number of tokens) was
better than absolute limits.

Having said that, it required knowing cost of IO and I am not sure
if we reached some conclusion at LSF about this.

On the other hand, all these algorithms only control how much IO
can be dispatched from a cgroup. Given deep queue depths of devices,
we will not gain much if device is not implementing some sort of
priority mechanism where one IO in queue is preferred over other.

To me biggest problem with IO has been writes overwhelming the device
and killing read latencies. CFQ did it to an extent but soon became
obsolete for faster devices. So now Jens's patch of controlling
background write might help here.

Not sure how proportional control at block layer will help with devices
of deep queue depths and without having any notion of priority of request.
Writes can easily fill up the queue and when latency sensitive IO comes
in, it will still suffer. So we probably need something proportional
control along with some sort of prioritization implemented in device.

Thanks
Vivek

> 
> high limit implements best effort limitation. cgroup with high limit can use
> more than high limit bandwidth/iops if all cgroups use at least high limit
> bandwidth/iops. If one cgroup is below its high limit, all cgroups can't use
> more bandwidth/iops than their high limit. If some cgroups have high limit and
> the others haven't, the cgroups without high limit will use max limit as their
> high limit.
> 
> The disk queue has a state machine. We have 3 states LIMIT_LOW, LIMIT_HIGH and
> LIMIT_MAX. In each state, we throttle cgroups up to a limit according to their
> state limit. LIMIT_LOW state limit is low limit, LIMIT_HIGH high limit and
> LIMIT_MAX max limit. In a state, if condition meets, queue can upgrade to
> higher level state or downgrade to lower level state. For example, queue is in
> LIMIT_LOW state and all cgroups reach their low limit, the queue will be
> upgraded to LIMIT_HIGH. In another example, queue is in LIMIT_MAX state, but
> one cgroup is below its high limit, the queue will be downgraded to LIMIT_HIGH.
> If all cgroups don't have limit for specific state, the state will be invalid.
> We will skip invalid state for upgrading/downgrading. Initially queue state is
> LIMIT_MAX till some cgroup gets low/high limit set, so this will maintain
> backward compatibility for users with only max limist set.
> 
> If downgrade/upgrade only happens according to limit, we will have performance
> issue. For example, if one cgroup has low limit set but the cgroup never
> dispatch enough IO to reach low limit, the queue state will remain in
> LIMIT_LOW. Other cgroups will be throttled and the whole disk utilization will
> be low. To solve this issue, if cgroup is below limit for a long time, we treat
> the cgroup idle and its corresponding limit will be ignored for
> upgrade/downgrade logic. The idle based upgrade could introduce a dilemma
> though, since we will do downgrade if cgroup is below its limit (eg idle). For
> example, if a cgroup is below its low limit for a long time, queue is upgraded
> to HIGH state. The cgroup continues to be below its low limit, the queue will
> be downgraded to LOW state. In this example, the queue will keep switching
> state between LOW and HIGH.
> 
> The key to avoid unnecessary state switching is to detect if cgroup is truly
> idle, which is a hard problem unfortunately. There are two kinds of idle. One
> is cgroup intends to not dispatch enough IO (real idle). In this case, we
> should do upgrade quickly and don't do downgrade. The other is other cgroups
> dispatch too many IO and use all bandwidth, the cgroup can't dispatch enough IO
> and looks idle (fake idle). In this case, we should do downgrade quickly and
> never do upgrade.
> 
> Destinguishing the two kinds of idle is impossible for a high queue depth disk
> as far as I can tell. This patch set doesn't try to precisely detect idle.
> Instead we record history of upgrade. If queue upgrades because cgroup hits
> limit, future downgrade is likely because of fake idle, hence future upgrade
> should run slowly and future downgrade should run quickly. Otherwise future
> downgrade is likely because of real idle, hence future upgrade should run
> quickly and future downgrade should run slowly. The adaptive upgrade/downgrade
> time means disk downgrade in real idle happens rarely and disk upgrade in fake
> idle happens rarely. This doesn't avoid repeatedly state switching though.
> Please see patch 6 for details.
> 
> User must carefully set the limits. Inproper setting could be ignored. For
> example, disk max bandwidth is 100M/s. One cgroup has low limit 60M/s, the
> other 50M/s. When the first cgroup runs in 60M/s, there is only 40M/s bandwidth
> remaining. The second cgroup will never reach 50M/s, so the cgroup will be
> treated idle and its limit will be literally ignored.
> 
> Comments and benchmarks are welcome!
> 
> Thanks,
> Shaohua
> 
> Shaohua Li (10):
>   block-throttle: prepare support multiple limits
>   block-throttle: add .low interface
>   block-throttle: configure bps/iops limit for cgroup in low limit
>   block-throttle: add upgrade logic for LIMIT_LOW state
>   block-throttle: add downgrade logic
>   block-throttle: idle detection
>   block-throttle: add .high interface
>   block-throttle: handle high limit
>   blk-throttle: make sure expire time isn't too big
>   blk-throttle: add trace log
> 
>  block/blk-throttle.c | 813 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 764 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.8.0.rc2

Powered by blists - more mailing lists