From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Borntraeger Subject: Re: Using tools such as ionice inside guests Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 22:12:20 +0200 Message-ID: <573E1E24.6090506@de.ibm.com> References: <573C8EEF.9060000@easter-eggs.com> <383e3862-b6f2-870f-9691-fef3e074f453@redhat.com> <573C97B2.3070606@easter-eggs.com> <1fc1093d-b77a-c56f-80ba-0b58f151f4a7@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Paolo Bonzini , Emmanuel Lacour , kvm@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from e06smtp17.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.113]:42525 "EHLO e06smtp17.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754561AbcESUM0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 May 2016 16:12:26 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp17.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 19 May 2016 21:12:24 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by d06dlp02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCA7E219004D for ; Thu, 19 May 2016 21:11:55 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.228]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u4JKCLRO17498598 for ; Thu, 19 May 2016 20:12:21 GMT Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u4JKCKwV015889 for ; Thu, 19 May 2016 14:12:20 -0600 In-Reply-To: <1fc1093d-b77a-c56f-80ba-0b58f151f4a7@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/18/2016 07:12 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 18/05/2016 18:26, Emmanuel Lacour wrote: >> Thanks, it's a bad news for us :( >> >> I will try to play with cgroups io throttling to limit by iops or bytes >> read, but it'll be a hard limit rather than a priority :( > > That probably won't work either, but you can use io throttling on the > host too. > >> Do you think there could be back some io priority throttling in not so >> far future kernels? > > I wouldn't oppose a patch to add back the non-mq path, but as far as I > know nobody is working on it. It's not hard and I can help if you need > guidance. > > Adding I/O scheduler support to blk-mq has been promised for at least a > year now, but I'm not aware of which kernel release might have the work. > It's not even been submitted to LKML, so I guess it's quite far away. What actually happened to the virtio-blk multiqueue support in QEMU?