linux-kernel - Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq

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: <4C1ABADD-6751-45E4-8DA1-ACA5A9E1379D@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:02:49 +0200
From:   Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>
Cc:     "aherrmann@...e.com" <aherrmann@...e.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq


> Il giorno 19 apr 2017, alle ore 07:01, Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com> ha scritto:
> 
> On 04/11/17 00:29, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> 
>>> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 17:15, Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com> ha scritto:
>>> 
>>> On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 11:55 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>>> That said, if you do always want maximum throughput, even at the
>>>> expense of latency, then just switch off low-latency heuristics, i.e.,
>>>> set low_latency to 0.  Depending on the device, setting slice_ilde to
>>>> 0 may help a lot too (as well as with CFQ).  If the throughput is
>>>> still low also after forcing BFQ to an only-throughput mode, then you
>>>> hit some bug, and I'll have a little more work to do ...
>>> 
>>> Has it been considered to make applications tell the I/O scheduler
>>> whether to optimize for latency or for throughput? It shouldn't be that
>>> hard for window managers and shells to figure out whether or not a new
>>> application that is being started is interactive or not. This would
>>> require a mechanism that allows applications to provide such information
>>> to the I/O scheduler. Wouldn't that be a better approach than the I/O
>>> scheduler trying to guess whether or not an application is an interactive
>>> application?
>> 
>> IMO that would be an (or maybe the) optimal solution, in terms of both
>> throughput and latency.  We have even developed a prototype doing what
>> you propose, for Android.  Unfortunately, I have not yet succeeded in
>> getting support, to turn it into candidate production code, or to make
>> a similar solution for lsb-compliant systems.
> 
> Hello Paolo,
> 
> What API was used by the Android application to tell the I/O scheduler 
> to optimize for latency? Do you think that it would be sufficient if the 
> application uses the ioprio_set() system call to set the I/O priority to 
> IOPRIO_CLASS_RT?
> 

That's exactly the hack we are using in our prototype.  However, it
can only be a temporary hack, because it mixes two slightly different
concepts: 1) the activation of weight raising and other mechanisms for
reducing latency for the target app, 2) the assignment of a different
priority class, which (cleanly) means just that processes in a lower
priority class will be served only when the processes of the target
app have no pending I/O request.  Finding a clean boosting API would
be one of the main steps to turn our prototype into a usable solution.

Thanks,
Paolo

> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.