[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y7cKf7IH+FJ/6IyV@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 07:35:59 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Cc: Jinke Han <hanjinke.666@...edance.com>, josef@...icpanda.com,
axboe@...nel.dk, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yinxin.x@...edance.com, jack@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] blk-throtl: Introduce sync and async queues for
blk-throtl
Hello,
On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 05:18:54PM +0100, Michal Koutný wrote:
> I guess similar problem would arise for devices that are "naturally"
> slow.
> Then:
> a) it must have been solved elsewhere in the block layer (but it's
> broken),
> b) it should be solved generically in the block layer (thus this is only
> a partial solution).
Hard limits tend to make this sort of problems a lot more pronounced because
the existing mechanisms tend to break down for the users which are severely
throttled down even while the device as a whole is fairly idle. cpu.max
often triggers severe priority inversions too, so it isn't too surprising
that people hit severe priority inversion issues w/ io.max.
Another problem with blk-throttle is that it doesn't prioritize shared IOs
identified by bio_issue_as_root_blkg() like iolatency and iocost do, so
there can be very severe priority inversions when e.g. journal commit gets
trapped in a low priority cgroup further exacerbating issues like this.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists