From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>
Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@fb.com, axboe@fb.com, vgoyal@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 11/17] blk-throttle: add a simple idle detection
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 15:56:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170109205643.GP12827@mtj.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b2a4b3d57a248e406a8687bbe2cce6f37c1b0749.1481833017.git.shli@fb.com>
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:33:02PM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> /* Throttling is performed over 100ms slice and after that slice is renewed */
> #define DFL_THROTL_SLICE (HZ / 10)
> #define MAX_THROTL_SLICE (HZ / 5)
> +#define DFL_IDLE_THRESHOLD_SSD (50 * 1000) /* 50 us */
> +#define DFL_IDLE_THRESHOLD_HD (1000 * 1000) /* 1 ms */
> +#define MAX_IDLE_TIME (500L * 1000 * 1000) /* 500 ms */
Hmm... why are we capping idle time so low? This is a value to be
configured by userland. Does it make sense to cap it this low? Also,
wouldn't it make sense to start with higher default value given that
the user has to explicitly enable low limit for it to be effective and
thus explicitly requesting best effort latency target which will be
added later?
I'm really uncomfortable with pitting these two knobs against each
other in the similar time ranges. It's really difficult tell what
latency target of 25us means and predict its behavior and when the
idle timeout is 50us. It's fine if some people fiddle with them but
it'd be great if the defaults clearly indicate that they're operating
in mostly separate time scales.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-09 20:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-15 20:32 [PATCH V5 00/17] blk-throttle: add .low limit Shaohua Li
2016-12-15 20:32 ` [PATCH V5 01/17] blk-throttle: use U64_MAX/UINT_MAX to replace -1 Shaohua Li
2016-12-15 20:32 ` [PATCH V5 02/17] blk-throttle: prepare support multiple limits Shaohua Li
2016-12-15 20:32 ` [PATCH V5 03/17] blk-throttle: add .low interface Shaohua Li
2017-01-09 16:35 ` Tejun Heo
2016-12-15 20:32 ` [PATCH V5 04/17] blk-throttle: configure bps/iops limit for cgroup in low limit Shaohua Li
2017-01-09 17:35 ` Tejun Heo
2016-12-15 20:32 ` [PATCH V5 05/17] blk-throttle: add upgrade logic for LIMIT_LOW state Shaohua Li
2017-01-09 18:40 ` Tejun Heo
2017-01-09 19:46 ` Tejun Heo
2016-12-15 20:32 ` [PATCH V5 06/17] blk-throttle: add downgrade logic Shaohua Li
2016-12-15 20:32 ` [PATCH V5 07/17] blk-throttle: make sure expire time isn't too big Shaohua Li
2017-01-09 19:54 ` Tejun Heo
2016-12-15 20:32 ` [PATCH V5 08/17] blk-throttle: make throtl_slice tunable Shaohua Li
2017-01-09 20:08 ` Tejun Heo
2016-12-15 20:33 ` [PATCH V5 09/17] blk-throttle: detect completed idle cgroup Shaohua Li
2017-01-09 20:13 ` Tejun Heo
2016-12-15 20:33 ` [PATCH V5 10/17] blk-throttle: make bandwidth change smooth Shaohua Li
2017-01-09 20:28 ` Tejun Heo
2016-12-15 20:33 ` [PATCH V5 11/17] blk-throttle: add a simple idle detection Shaohua Li
2017-01-09 20:56 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2016-12-15 20:33 ` [PATCH V5 12/17] blk-throttle: add interface to configure idle time threshold Shaohua Li
2017-01-09 20:58 ` Tejun Heo
2016-12-15 20:33 ` [PATCH V5 13/17] blk-throttle: ignore idle cgroup limit Shaohua Li
2017-01-09 21:01 ` Tejun Heo
2016-12-15 20:33 ` [PATCH V5 14/17] blk-throttle: add interface for per-cgroup target latency Shaohua Li
2017-01-09 21:14 ` Tejun Heo
2016-12-15 20:33 ` [PATCH V5 15/17] block: track request size in blk_issue_stat Shaohua Li
2016-12-16 2:01 ` kbuild test robot
2017-01-09 21:17 ` Tejun Heo
2016-12-15 20:33 ` [PATCH V5 16/17] blk-throttle: add a mechanism to estimate IO latency Shaohua Li
2017-01-09 21:39 ` Tejun Heo
2016-12-15 20:33 ` [PATCH V5 17/17] blk-throttle: add latency target support Shaohua Li
2017-01-09 21:46 ` [PATCH V5 00/17] blk-throttle: add .low limit Tejun Heo
2017-01-09 22:27 ` Shaohua Li
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=20170109205643.GP12827@mtj.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shli@fb.com \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).