Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 8 Jun 2021 19:46:54 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@arm.com>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: iowait boost is broken
Message-ID: <YL+tDv/EL5ogf/0w@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <CAEXW_YTcO=hbmdq3nOx2RJfT2yPyoFnQx5niB38R2Lzpsp38bA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210607191031.GA12489@e120325.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210607191031.GA12489@e120325.cambridge.arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 08:10:32PM +0100, Beata Michalska wrote:
> So back to the expectations.
> The main problem, as I see it, is what do we actually want to achieve with
> the I/O boosting? Is it supposed to compensate the time lost while waiting
> for the I/O request to be completed or is is supposed to optimize the rate
> at which I/O requests are being made. 

The latter, you want to increase the race of submission.

> Do we want to boost I/O bound tasks by
> default, no limits applied  or should we care about balancing performance
> vs power ? And unless those expectations are clearly stated, we might not
> get too far with any changes, really.

You want to not increase power beyond what is needed to match the rate
of processing I suppose.