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;
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] blkcg: implement blk-iocost
From:   Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <20191101161506.GA28212@blackbody.suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:56:48 +0100
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        clm@fb.com, dennisz@fb.com, Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>,
        kernel-team@fb.com, newella@fb.com, lizefan@huawei.com,
        axboe@kernel.dk, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        josef@toxicpanda.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F45F2906-AB10-473D-B515-793E8FB10E6A@linaro.org>
References: <20190828220600.2527417-1-tj@kernel.org>
 <20190828220600.2527417-9-tj@kernel.org>
 <20190910125513.GA6399@blackbody.suse.cz>
 <20190910160855.GS2263813@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
 <20191003145106.GC6678@blackbody.suse.cz>
 <20191003164552.GA3247445@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
 <20191009153629.GA5400@blackbody.suse.cz>
 <20191014153643.GD18794@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
 <20191101161506.GA28212@blackbody.suse.cz>
To:     =?utf-8?Q?Michal_Koutn=C3=BD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


> Il giorno 1 nov 2019, alle ore 17:15, Michal Koutn=C3=BD =
<mkoutny@suse.com> ha scritto:
>=20
> Hello
>=20

Hi Michal,

> (I realize it's likely late for the remark but I'd like to bring it up
> anyway.)
>=20
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 08:36:43AM -0700, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> =
wrote:
>> We likely can talk on the subject
>> for a really long time probalby because there's no clearly =
technically
>> better choice here, so...
> I agree with you that functionally the two options are equal and also
> from configuration POV they seem both sensible.
>=20
> I checked where BFQ stores its per-device parameters and its under the
> sysfs directory of given device's iosched directory. So from the user
> perspective it'd be more consistent if all similar tunables resided
> under that location.
>=20
> (OTOH, I admit I'm not that familiar with block layer internals to
> identify the overlap between IO scheduler and IO controller.)
>=20

If useful for you to know, BFQ parameters are not meant to changed
(apart from the low_latency tunable, if one wants full control on
weights).  Parameters are a testing aid, to use in case of an anomaly.
After solving the anomaly, default values should be used again.

Thanks,
Paolo

>> Yeah, it's kinda unfortunate that it requires this many parameters =
but
>> at least my opinion is that that's reflecting the inherent
>> complexities of the underlying devices and how workloads interact =
with
>> them.
> After I learnt about the existence of BFQ tunables, I'm no longer
> concerned by the complexity of the parameter space.
>=20
> Thanks for the explanations of QoS purpose.
>=20
>> For QoS parameters, Andy is currently working on a method to =
determine
>> the set of parametesr which are at the edge of total work cliff -
>> ie. the point where tighetning QoS params further starts reducing the
>> total amount of work the device can do significantly.
> The QoS description in the Documentation/ describes the interpretation
> of the individual parameters, however, this purpose and how it works =
was
> not clear to be from that. I think the QoS policy would deserve =
similar
> description in the Documentation/.
>=20
>> Nothing can issue IOs indefinitely without some of them completing =
and
>> the total amount of work a workload can do is conjoined with the
>> completion latencies. [...]
> I may reply to this point later. However, if that provably works, I'm
> likely missing something in my understanding, so that'd be irrelevant.
>=20
> Cheers,
> Michal