[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161004162759.GD4205@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 12:27:59 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...more.it>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Kernel-team@...com,
jmoyer@...hat.com, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit
Hello,
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 06:22:28PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
> Could you please elaborate more on this point? BFQ uses sectors
> served to measure service, and, on the all the fast devices on which
> we have tested it, it accurately distributes
> bandwidth as desired, redistributes excess bandwidth with any issue,
> and guarantees high responsiveness and low latency at application and
> system level (e.g., ~0 drop rate in video playback, with any background
> workload tested).
The same argument as before. Bandwidth is a very bad measure of IO
resources spent. For specific use cases (like desktop or whatever),
this can work but not generally.
> Could you please suggest me some test to show how sector-based
> guarantees fails?
Well, mix 4k random and sequential workloads and try to distribute the
acteual IO resources.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists