From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] blk-throtl: make latency= absolute
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:18:49 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171113141849.GH983427@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171113112710.GG983427@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
Hello, Shaohua. Just a bit of addition.
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 03:27:10AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> What I'm trying to say is that the latency is defined as "from bio
> issue to completion", not "in-flight time on device". Whether the
> on-device latency is 50us or 500us, the host side queueing latency can
> be in orders of magnitude higher.
>
> For things like starvation protection for managerial workloads which
> work fine on rotating disks, the only thing we need to protect against
> is excessive host side queue overflowing leading to starvation of such
> workloads. IOW, we're talking about latency target in tens or lower
> hundreds of millisecs. Whether the on-device time is 50 or 500us
> doesn't matter that much.
So, the absolute latency target can express the requirements of the
workload in question - it's saying "if the IO latency stays within
this boundary, regardless of the underlying device, this workload is
gonna be happy enough". There are workloads which are this way -
e.g. it has some IOs to do and some deadline requirements (like
heartbeat period). For those workloads, it doesn't matter what the
underlying device is. It can be a rotating disk, or a slow or
lightening-fast SSD. As long as the absolute target latency is met,
the workload will be happy.
The % notation can express how much proportional hit the workload is
willing to take to share the underlying device with others - "I'm
willing to take 20% extra hit in latency so that I can be a nice
neighbor", which also makes sense to me.
The baseline + slack (the current one) is the mix of the two. IOW,
the configuration is dependent on both the workload requirements and
the performance characteristics of the underlying device - you can't
use a single value across different workloads or devices. We can
absolutely keep supporting this but I think it fits worse than the
previous two and am having a bit of hard time to come up with why we'd
want this.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-13 14:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-09 22:19 [PATCH 1/2] blk-throtl: make latency= absolute Tejun Heo
2017-11-09 22:20 ` [PATCH 2/2] blk-throtl: add relative percentage support to latency= Tejun Heo
2017-11-14 22:06 ` Shaohua Li
2017-11-09 23:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] blk-throtl: make latency= absolute Shaohua Li
2017-11-09 23:42 ` Tejun Heo
2017-11-10 4:27 ` Shaohua Li
2017-11-10 15:43 ` Tejun Heo
2017-11-13 4:29 ` Shaohua Li
2017-11-13 11:27 ` Tejun Heo
2017-11-13 14:18 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2017-11-13 22:08 ` Shaohua Li
2017-11-14 14:52 ` Tejun Heo
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=20171113141849.GH983427@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shli@kernel.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