From: Andrea Righi <righiandr@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:29:44 +0100 (MET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47878B68.5070806@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1200061259.29498.64.camel@twins>
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, I'm wondering if it's possible (and how) to already do this with
>> process containers...
>
> I think there is an IO controller somewhere based on CFQ.
>
> I don't like this patch, because it throttles requests/s, and that
> doesn't say much. If a task would generate a very seeky load it could
> still tie up the disk even with a relatively low setting.
>
Very true. A seeky intensive process wouldn't be limited at all. And I'm
sure there're better ways/models to satisfy my needs.
A suggestion (off-list) has been to try with ionice that seems to be the
right solution to limit the I/O activity of single processes, but it
doens't allow to define policies based on UIDs or GIDs.
BTW I don't have any number to compare the effectiveness of the priority
approach vs the throttling approach. Here is a very quick test made on
my PC (not sure if glxgears is the right benchmark to evaluate
the system responsiveness):
>>>>>> starting: glxgears <<<<<<
3564 frames in 5.0 seconds = 711.722 FPS
3953 frames in 5.0 seconds = 790.598 FPS
3969 frames in 5.0 seconds = 793.794 FPS
>>>>>> starting: md5sum /usr/lib/* <<<<<<
3769 frames in 5.0 seconds = 753.189 FPS
2877 frames in 5.0 seconds = 572.843 FPS
3481 frames in 5.0 seconds = 696.071 FPS
3775 frames in 5.0 seconds = 751.404 FPS
2781 frames in 5.0 seconds = 556.118 FPS
3209 frames in 5.0 seconds = 641.064 FPS
2843 frames in 5.0 seconds = 565.697 FPS
>>>>>> starting: echo 100 > /proc/`pidof md5sum`/io_throttle <<<<<<
3652 frames in 5.0 seconds = 730.253 FPS
3669 frames in 5.0 seconds = 733.734 FPS
3797 frames in 5.0 seconds = 759.234 FPS
3883 frames in 5.0 seconds = 776.488 FPS
3895 frames in 5.0 seconds = 778.868 FPS
3845 frames in 5.0 seconds = 768.968 FPS
3829 frames in 5.0 seconds = 765.793 FPS
>>>>>> flush caches (/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches) <<<<<<
>>>>>> starting: glxgears <<<<<<
3763 frames in 5.0 seconds = 752.539 FPS
3818 frames in 5.0 seconds = 763.483 FPS
>>>>>> starting: ionice -c3 md5sum /usr/lib/* <<<<<<
3443 frames in 5.0 seconds = 688.597 FPS
3202 frames in 5.0 seconds = 640.390 FPS
3807 frames in 5.0 seconds = 761.391 FPS
3053 frames in 5.0 seconds = 610.539 FPS
2759 frames in 5.0 seconds = 551.790 FPS
2975 frames in 5.0 seconds = 594.873 FPS
2993 frames in 5.0 seconds = 596.709 FPS
3250 frames in 5.0 seconds = 649.857 FPS
3494 frames in 5.0 seconds = 698.688 FPS
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-11 15:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-10 22:45 [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling Andrea Righi
2008-01-11 1:50 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-01-11 10:28 ` Andrea Righi
2008-01-11 14:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-11 15:29 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2008-01-11 14:05 ` David Newall
2008-01-11 15:44 ` Andrea Righi
2008-01-16 19:21 ` David Newall
2008-01-11 15:59 ` Balbir Singh
2008-01-11 16:32 ` Andrea Righi
2008-01-12 4:57 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-01-12 9:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-12 10:57 ` Balbir Singh
2008-01-12 11:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-12 18:01 ` Andrea Righi
2008-01-13 4:46 ` Balbir Singh
2008-01-15 16:49 ` [RFC][PATCH] per-uid/gid I/O throttling (was Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling) Andrea Righi
2008-01-11 17:58 ` Pavel Machek
2008-01-23 15:41 ` Andrea Righi
2008-01-16 10:45 ` Balbir Singh
2008-01-16 11:30 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-01-16 12:05 ` Balbir Singh
2008-01-16 12:24 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-01-16 12:58 ` Andrea Righi
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=47878B68.5070806@users.sourceforge.net \
--to=righiandr@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=davidsen@tmr.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.