In below scenario blkio cgroup does not work as per their assigned
weights :-
1. When the underlying device is nonrotational with a single HW queue
with depth of >= CFQ_HW_QUEUE_MIN
2. When the use case is forming two blkio cgroups cg1(weight 1000) &
cg2(wight 100) and two processes(file1 and file2) doing sync IO in
their respective blkio cgroups.
For above usecase result of fio (without this patch):-
file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=685: Thu Jan 1 19:41:49 1970
write: IOPS=1315, BW=41.1MiB/s (43.1MB/s)(1024MiB/24906msec)
<...>
file2: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=686: Thu Jan 1 19:41:49 1970
write: IOPS=1295, BW=40.5MiB/s (42.5MB/s)(1024MiB/25293msec)
<...>
// both the process BW is equal even though they belong to diff.
cgroups with weight of 1000(cg1) and 100(cg2)
In above case (for non rotational NCQ devices),
as soon as the request from cg1 is completed and even
though it is provided with higher set_slice=10, because of CFQ
algorithm when the driver tries to fetch the request, CFQ expires
this group without providing any idle time nor weight priority
and schedules another cfq group (in this case cg2).
And thus both cfq groups(cg1 & cg2) keep alternating to get the
disk time and hence loses the cgroup weight based scheduling.
Below patch gives a chance to cfq algorithm (cfq_arm_slice_timer)
to arm the slice timer in case group_idle is enabled.
In case if group_idle is also not required (including for nonrotational
NCQ drives), we need to explicitly set group_idle = 0 from sysfs for
such cases.
With this patch result of fio(for above usecase) :-
file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=690: Thu Jan 1 00:06:08 1970
write: IOPS=1706, BW=53.3MiB/s (55.9MB/s)(1024MiB/19197msec)
<..>
file2: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=691: Thu Jan 1 00:06:08 1970
write: IOPS=1043, BW=32.6MiB/s (34.2MB/s)(1024MiB/31401msec)
<..>
// In this processes BW is as per their respective cgroups weight.
Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani <[email protected]>
---
block/cfq-iosched.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/block/cfq-iosched.c b/block/cfq-iosched.c
index 0fb78fb..15cad96 100644
--- a/block/cfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/cfq-iosched.c
@@ -2934,7 +2934,8 @@ static void cfq_arm_slice_timer(struct cfq_data *cfqd)
* for devices that support queuing, otherwise we still have a problem
* with sync vs async workloads.
*/
- if (blk_queue_nonrot(cfqd->queue) && cfqd->hw_tag)
+ if (blk_queue_nonrot(cfqd->queue) && cfqd->hw_tag &&
+ !cfqd->cfq_group_idle)
return;
WARN_ON(!RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&cfqq->sort_list));
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Hi Jens,
Could you please take a look at below patch and the issue it is trying
to solve. Please let us know your thoughts on the below problem and the
patch.
Regards
Ritesh
On 8/9/2017 6:28 PM, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> In below scenario blkio cgroup does not work as per their assigned
> weights :-
> 1. When the underlying device is nonrotational with a single HW queue
> with depth of >= CFQ_HW_QUEUE_MIN
> 2. When the use case is forming two blkio cgroups cg1(weight 1000) &
> cg2(wight 100) and two processes(file1 and file2) doing sync IO in
> their respective blkio cgroups.
>
> For above usecase result of fio (without this patch):-
> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=685: Thu Jan 1 19:41:49 1970
> write: IOPS=1315, BW=41.1MiB/s (43.1MB/s)(1024MiB/24906msec)
> <...>
> file2: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=686: Thu Jan 1 19:41:49 1970
> write: IOPS=1295, BW=40.5MiB/s (42.5MB/s)(1024MiB/25293msec)
> <...>
> // both the process BW is equal even though they belong to diff.
> cgroups with weight of 1000(cg1) and 100(cg2)
>
> In above case (for non rotational NCQ devices),
> as soon as the request from cg1 is completed and even
> though it is provided with higher set_slice=10, because of CFQ
> algorithm when the driver tries to fetch the request, CFQ expires
> this group without providing any idle time nor weight priority
> and schedules another cfq group (in this case cg2).
> And thus both cfq groups(cg1 & cg2) keep alternating to get the
> disk time and hence loses the cgroup weight based scheduling.
>
> Below patch gives a chance to cfq algorithm (cfq_arm_slice_timer)
> to arm the slice timer in case group_idle is enabled.
> In case if group_idle is also not required (including for nonrotational
> NCQ drives), we need to explicitly set group_idle = 0 from sysfs for
> such cases.
>
> With this patch result of fio(for above usecase) :-
> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=690: Thu Jan 1 00:06:08 1970
> write: IOPS=1706, BW=53.3MiB/s (55.9MB/s)(1024MiB/19197msec)
> <..>
> file2: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=691: Thu Jan 1 00:06:08 1970
> write: IOPS=1043, BW=32.6MiB/s (34.2MB/s)(1024MiB/31401msec)
> <..>
> // In this processes BW is as per their respective cgroups weight.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani <[email protected]>
> ---
> block/cfq-iosched.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/cfq-iosched.c b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> index 0fb78fb..15cad96 100644
> --- a/block/cfq-iosched.c
> +++ b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> @@ -2934,7 +2934,8 @@ static void cfq_arm_slice_timer(struct cfq_data *cfqd)
> * for devices that support queuing, otherwise we still have a problem
> * with sync vs async workloads.
> */
> - if (blk_queue_nonrot(cfqd->queue) && cfqd->hw_tag)
> + if (blk_queue_nonrot(cfqd->queue) && cfqd->hw_tag &&
> + !cfqd->cfq_group_idle)
> return;
>
> WARN_ON(!RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&cfqq->sort_list));
>
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center,
Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
On 08/10/2017 11:15 PM, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> Could you please take a look at below patch and the issue it is trying
> to solve. Please let us know your thoughts on the below problem and the
> patch.
It looks reasonable to me. I'll queue it up for 4.14.
--
Jens Axboe
On 8/11/2017 8:30 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 08/10/2017 11:15 PM, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
>> Hi Jens,
>>
>> Could you please take a look at below patch and the issue it is trying
>> to solve. Please let us know your thoughts on the below problem and the
>> patch.
>
> It looks reasonable to me. I'll queue it up for 4.14.
>
Thanks.
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center,
Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.