From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
ulf.hansson@linaro.org, broonie@kernel.org,
lee.tibbert@gmail.com, oleksandr@natalenko.name
Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX/IMPROVEMENT V2 0/3] three bfq fixes restoring service guarantees with random sync writes in bg
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:06:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1504199166.666.11.camel@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170831144257.oa5nm6vzihpam6kw@techsingularity.net>
On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 15:42 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:46:28AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
> > [SECOND TAKE, with just the name of one of the tester fixed]
> >
> > Hi,
> > while testing the read-write unfairness issues reported by Mel, I
> > found BFQ failing to guarantee good responsiveness against heavy
> > random sync writes in the background, i.e., multiple writers doing
> > random writes and systematic fdatasync [1]. The failure was caused by
> > three related bugs, because of which BFQ failed to guarantee to
> > high-weight processes the expected fraction of the throughput.
> >
>
> Queued on top of Ming's most recent series even though that's still a work
> in progress. I should know in a few days how things stand.
It seems to have cured an interactivity issue I regularly meet during
kbuild final link/depmod phase of fat kernel kbuild, especially bad
with evolution mail usage during that on spinning rust. Can't really
say for sure given this is not based on measurement.
-Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-31 17:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-31 6:46 [PATCH BUGFIX/IMPROVEMENT V2 0/3] three bfq fixes restoring service guarantees with random sync writes in bg Paolo Valente
2017-08-31 6:46 ` [PATCH BUGFIX/IMPROVEMENT V2 1/3] block, bfq: make lookup_next_entity push up vtime on expirations Paolo Valente
2017-08-31 6:46 ` [PATCH BUGFIX/IMPROVEMENT V2 2/3] block, bfq: remove direct switch to an entity in higher class Paolo Valente
2017-08-31 6:46 ` [PATCH BUGFIX/IMPROVEMENT V2 3/3] block, bfq: guarantee update_next_in_service always returns an eligible entity Paolo Valente
2017-08-31 14:21 ` [PATCH BUGFIX/IMPROVEMENT V2 0/3] three bfq fixes restoring service guarantees with random sync writes in bg Jens Axboe
2017-08-31 14:42 ` Mel Gorman
2017-08-31 17:06 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2017-08-31 17:12 ` Paolo Valente
2017-08-31 17:31 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-09-04 8:14 ` Mel Gorman
2017-09-04 8:55 ` Paolo Valente
2017-09-04 9:07 ` Ming Lei
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=1504199166.666.11.camel@gmx.de \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=lee.tibbert@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=oleksandr@natalenko.name \
--cc=paolo.valente@linaro.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