From: Andrea Righi <righiandr@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:29:44 +0100 (MET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47878B68.5070806@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1200061259.29498.64.camel@twins>
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, I'm wondering if it's possible (and how) to already do this with
>> process containers...
>
> I think there is an IO controller somewhere based on CFQ.
>
> I don't like this patch, because it throttles requests/s, and that
> doesn't say much. If a task would generate a very seeky load it could
> still tie up the disk even with a relatively low setting.
>
Very true. A seeky intensive process wouldn't be limited at all. And I'm
sure there're better ways/models to satisfy my needs.
A suggestion (off-list) has been to try with ionice that seems to be the
right solution to limit the I/O activity of single processes, but it
doens't allow to define policies based on UIDs or GIDs.
BTW I don't have any number to compare the effectiveness of the priority
approach vs the throttling approach. Here is a very quick test made on
my PC (not sure if glxgears is the right benchmark to evaluate
the system responsiveness):
>>>>>> starting: glxgears <<<<<<
3564 frames in 5.0 seconds = 711.722 FPS
3953 frames in 5.0 seconds = 790.598 FPS
3969 frames in 5.0 seconds = 793.794 FPS
>>>>>> starting: md5sum /usr/lib/* <<<<<<
3769 frames in 5.0 seconds = 753.189 FPS
2877 frames in 5.0 seconds = 572.843 FPS
3481 frames in 5.0 seconds = 696.071 FPS
3775 frames in 5.0 seconds = 751.404 FPS
2781 frames in 5.0 seconds = 556.118 FPS
3209 frames in 5.0 seconds = 641.064 FPS
2843 frames in 5.0 seconds = 565.697 FPS
>>>>>> starting: echo 100 > /proc/`pidof md5sum`/io_throttle <<<<<<
3652 frames in 5.0 seconds = 730.253 FPS
3669 frames in 5.0 seconds = 733.734 FPS
3797 frames in 5.0 seconds = 759.234 FPS
3883 frames in 5.0 seconds = 776.488 FPS
3895 frames in 5.0 seconds = 778.868 FPS
3845 frames in 5.0 seconds = 768.968 FPS
3829 frames in 5.0 seconds = 765.793 FPS
>>>>>> flush caches (/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches) <<<<<<
>>>>>> starting: glxgears <<<<<<
3763 frames in 5.0 seconds = 752.539 FPS
3818 frames in 5.0 seconds = 763.483 FPS
>>>>>> starting: ionice -c3 md5sum /usr/lib/* <<<<<<
3443 frames in 5.0 seconds = 688.597 FPS
3202 frames in 5.0 seconds = 640.390 FPS
3807 frames in 5.0 seconds = 761.391 FPS
3053 frames in 5.0 seconds = 610.539 FPS
2759 frames in 5.0 seconds = 551.790 FPS
2975 frames in 5.0 seconds = 594.873 FPS
2993 frames in 5.0 seconds = 596.709 FPS
3250 frames in 5.0 seconds = 649.857 FPS
3494 frames in 5.0 seconds = 698.688 FPS
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-11 15:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-10 22:45 [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling Andrea Righi
2008-01-11 1:50 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-01-11 10:28 ` Andrea Righi
2008-01-11 14:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-11 15:29 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2008-01-11 14:05 ` David Newall
2008-01-11 15:44 ` Andrea Righi
2008-01-16 19:21 ` David Newall
2008-01-11 15:59 ` Balbir Singh
2008-01-11 16:32 ` Andrea Righi
2008-01-12 4:57 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-01-12 9:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-12 10:57 ` Balbir Singh
2008-01-12 11:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-12 18:01 ` Andrea Righi
2008-01-13 4:46 ` Balbir Singh
2008-01-15 16:49 ` [RFC][PATCH] per-uid/gid I/O throttling (was Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling) Andrea Righi
2008-01-11 17:58 ` Pavel Machek
2008-01-23 15:41 ` Andrea Righi
2008-01-16 10:45 ` Balbir Singh
2008-01-16 11:30 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-01-16 12:05 ` Balbir Singh
2008-01-16 12:24 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-01-16 12:58 ` Andrea Righi
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=47878B68.5070806@users.sourceforge.net \
--to=righiandr@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=davidsen@tmr.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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