Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 5 Sep 2019 09:55:40 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, newella@fb.com, clm@fb.com,
        Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>, dennisz@fb.com,
        Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-team@fb.com,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
        kafai@fb.com, songliubraving@fb.com, yhs@fb.com,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET block/for-next] IO cost model based work-conserving
 porportional controller
Message-ID: <20190905165540.GJ2263813@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
References: <20190614015620.1587672-1-tj@kernel.org>
 <20190614175642.GA657710@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
 <5A63F937-F7B5-4D09-9DB4-C73D6F571D50@linaro.org>
 <B5E431F7-549D-4FC4-A098-D074DF9586A1@linaro.org>
 <20190820151903.GH2263813@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
 <9EB760CE-0028-4766-AE9D-6E90028D8579@linaro.org>
 <20190831065358.GF2263813@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
 <88C7DC68-680E-49BB-9699-509B9B0B12A0@linaro.org>
 <20190902155652.GH2263813@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
 <D9F6BC6D-FEB3-40CA-A33C-F501AE4434F0@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D9F6BC6D-FEB3-40CA-A33C-F501AE4434F0@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello, Paolo.

So, I'm currently verifying iocost in the FB fleet.  Around three
thousand machines running v5.2 (+ some backports) with btrfs on a
handful of different models of consumer grade SSDs.  I haven't seen
complete loss of control as you're reporting.  Given that you're
reporting the same thing on io.latency, which is deployed on multiple
orders of magnitude more machines at this point, it's likely that
there's something common affecting your test setup.  Can you please
describe your test configuration and if you aren't already try testing
on btrfs?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun