From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753221Ab2LKOr1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:47:27 -0500 Received: from mail-da0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:57291 "EHLO mail-da0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752807Ab2LKOrZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:47:25 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:47:18 -0800 From: Tejun Heo To: Vivek Goyal Cc: Zhao Shuai , axboe@kernel.dk, ctalbott@google.com, rni@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: performance drop after using blkcg Message-ID: <20121211144718.GF7084@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20121211142518.GA5580@redhat.com> <20121211142742.GE7084@htj.dyndns.org> <20121211144336.GB5580@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121211144336.GB5580@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 09:43:36AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > I think if one sets slice_idle=0 and group_idle=0 in CFQ, for all practical > purposes it should become and IOPS based group scheduling. No, I don't think it is. You can't achieve isolation without idling between group switches. We're measuring slices in terms of iops but what cfq actually schedules are still time slices, not IOs. > For group accounting then CFQ uses number of requests from each cgroup > and uses that information to schedule groups. > > I have not been able to figure out the practical benefits of that > approach. At least not for the simple workloads I played with. This > approach will not work for simple things like trying to improve dependent > read latencies in presence of heavery writers. That's the single biggest > use case CFQ solves, IMO. As I wrote above, it's not about accounting. It's about scheduling unit. > And that happens because we stop writes and don't let them go to device > and device is primarily dealing with reads. If some process is doing > dependent reads and we want to improve read latencies, then either > we need to stop flow of writes or devices are good and they always > prioritize READs over WRITEs. If devices are good then we probably > don't even need blkcg. > > So yes, iops based appraoch is fine just that number of cases where you > will see any service differentiation should significantly less. No, using iops to schedule time slices would lead to that. We just need to be allocating and scheduling iops, and I don't think we should be doing that from cfq. Thanks. -- tejun