From: Paolo <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
broonie@kernel.org
Subject: [RFD] I/O scheduling in blk-mq
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 16:09:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <42e6f39b-7b47-963f-69b8-2cf61e889339@linaro.org> (raw)
Hi Jens, Tejun, Christoph, all,
AFAIK blk-mq does not yet feature I/O schedulers. In particular, there
is no scheduler providing strong guarantees in terms of
responsiveness, latency for time-sensitive applications and bandwidth
distribution.
For this reason, I'm trying to port BFQ to blk-mq, or to develop
something simpler if even a reduced version of BFQ proves to be too
heavy (this project is supported by Linaro). If you are willing to
provide some feedback in this respect, I would like to ask for
opinions/suggestions on the following two matters, and possibly to
open a more general discussion on I/O scheduling in blk-mq.
1) My idea is to have an independent instance of BFQ, or in general of
the I/O scheduler, executed for each software queue. Then there would
be no global scheduling. The drawback of no global scheduling is that
each process cannot get more than 1/M of the total throughput of the
device, if M is the number of software queues. But, if I'm not
mistaken, it is however unfeasible to give a process more than 1/M of
the total throughput, without lowering the throughput itself. In fact,
giving a process more than 1/M of the total throughput implies serving
its software queue, say Q, more than the others. The only way to do
it is periodically stopping the service of the other software queues
and dispatching only the requests in Q. But this would reduce
parallelism, which is the main way how blk-mq achieves a very high
throughput. Are these considerations, and, in particular, one
independent I/O scheduler per software queue, sensible?
2) To provide per-process service guarantees, an I/O scheduler must
create per-process internal queues. BFQ and CFQ use I/O contexts to
achieve this goal. Is something like that (or exactly the same)
available also in blk-mq? If so, do you have any suggestion, or link to
documentation/code on how to use what is available in blk-mq?
Thanks,
Paolo
next reply other threads:[~2016-08-08 14:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-08 14:09 Paolo [this message]
2016-08-08 15:26 ` Bart Van Assche
2016-08-08 20:09 ` Omar Sandoval
2016-08-31 15:20 ` Paolo Valente
2016-09-30 6:18 ` Paolo Valente
2016-10-05 17:46 ` Omar Sandoval
2016-10-05 20:16 ` Paolo Valente
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=42e6f39b-7b47-963f-69b8-2cf61e889339@linaro.org \
--to=paolo.valente@linaro.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®