[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <F9A2F063-F5A2-49A6-8DFE-91ACDE380645@unimore.it>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 21:02:47 +0200
From: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...more.it>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shli@...com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.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
> Il giorno 04 ott 2016, alle ore 20:54, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> ha scritto:
>
> Hello, Paolo.
>
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 07:43:48PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>> I don't think IO bandwidth does not matter. The problem is bandwidth can't
>>> measure IO cost. For example, you can't say 8k IO costs 2x IO resource than 4k
>>> IO.
>>
>> For what goal do you need to be able to say this, once you succeeded
>> in guaranteeing bandwidth and low latency to each
>> process/client/group/node/user?
>
> For resource partitioning mostly. It's not a single user or purpose
> use case. The same device gets shared across unrelated workloads and
> we need to guarantee differing levels of quality of service to each
> regardless of the specifics of workload.
That's exactly what BFQ has succeeded in doing in all the tests
devised so far. Can you give me a concrete example for which I can
try with BFQ and with any other mechanism you deem better. If
you are right, numbers will just make your point.
Thanks,
Paolo
> We actually need to be able
> to control IO resources.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
--
Paolo Valente
Algogroup
Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Informatiche e Matematiche
Via Campi 213/B
41125 Modena - Italy
http://algogroup.unimore.it/people/paolo/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists