From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933023AbYDYVhd (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:37:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1763224AbYDYVhU (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:37:20 -0400 Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc ([85.10.199.196]:57174 "EHLO Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762913AbYDYVhS (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:37:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:37:02 +0200 From: Florian Westphal To: Ryo Tsuruta Cc: s-uchida@ap.jp.nec.com, vtaras@openvz.org, axboe@kernel.dk, m-takahashi@ex.jp.nec.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tom-sugawara@ap.jp.nec.com, devel@openvz.org Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC][v2][patch 0/12][CFQ-cgroup]Yet another I/O bandwidth controlling subsystem for CGroups based on CFQ Message-ID: <20080425213702.GL19845@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc> References: <008001c893db$4e2eccf0$ea8c66d0$@jp.nec.com> <6599ad830804021541s3c1e3197y77d87f63bf47e4b3@mail.gmail.com> <005d01c89559$9e538200$dafa8600$@jp.nec.com> <20080425.185444.115924172.ryov@valinux.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080425.185444.115924172.ryov@valinux.co.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ryo Tsuruta wrote: [..] > I'd like to see other benchmark results if anyone has. Here are a few results. IO is issued in 4k chunks, using O_DIRECT. Each process issues both reads and writes. There are 60 such processes in each cgroup (except where noted). Numbers given show the total count of io requests (read and write) completed in 60 seconds. All processes use the same partition, fs is ext3. Vasily's scheduler: ------------------------------------------------------ | cgroup | s0 | s1 |total | |priority| 4 | 4 |I/Os | ------------------------------------------------------ | | 24953 | 24062 | 49015| | | 29558(60 processes)| 14639 (30 proc)| 44197| ------------------------------------------------------- |priority| 0 | 4 | | | | 24221 | 24047 | 48268| |priority| 1 | 4 | | | | 24897 | 24509 | 49406| |priority| 2 | 4 | | | | 23295 | 23622 | 46917| |priority| 0 | 7 | | | | 22301 | 23373 | 45674| ------------------------------------------------------- Satoshi's scheduler: ------------------------------------------------------- | cgroup | s0 | s1 |total | |priority| 3 | 3 |I/Os | | | 25175 | 26463 | 51638| | | 26944 (60) | 26698 (30) | 53642| ------------------------------------------------------- |priority| 0 | 3 | | | | 60821 | 19846 | 80667| |priority| 1 | 3 | | | | 50608 | 25994 | 76602| |priority| 2 | 3 | | | | 32132 | 26641 | 58773| |priority| 7 | 0 | | | | 91387 | 12547 |103934| ------------------------------------------------------ So in short, i can't see any effect when i use Vasily's i/o scheduler. Setting echo 10 > /sys/block/hda/queue/iosched/cgrp_slice did at least show different results in the 'prio 7 vs. prio 0 case' (~29000 (prio 7) vs. 20000 (prio 0)). What i found surprising is that Satoshis scheduler has about twice of the io count... Thanks, Florian