Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] block, bfq: don't disable wbt if
 CONFIG_BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED is disabled
To:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, paolo.valente@linaro.org,
        axboe@kernel.dk, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com,
        "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>
References: <20220922113558.1085314-1-yukuai3@huawei.com>
 <20220922113558.1085314-4-yukuai3@huawei.com>
 <Yy10vjnxAvca8Ee1@infradead.org>
 <988a86f2-e960-ba59-4d41-f4c8a6345ee9@huaweicloud.com>
 <20220923100659.a3atdanlvygffuxt@quack3>
From:   Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
Message-ID: <95998ae6-8bbf-b438-801b-7033ceaf9c36@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Sep 2022 18:23:03 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20220923100659.a3atdanlvygffuxt@quack3>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi, Jan

在 2022/09/23 18:06, Jan Kara 写道:
> On Fri 23-09-22 17:50:49, Yu Kuai wrote:
>> Hi, Christoph
>>
>> 在 2022/09/23 16:56, Christoph Hellwig 写道:
>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 07:35:56PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>>> wbt and bfq should work just fine if CONFIG_BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED is disabled.
>>>
>>> Umm, wouldn't this be something decided at runtime, that is not
>>> if CONFIG_BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED is enable/disable in the kernel build
>>> if the hierarchical cgroup based scheduling is actually used for a
>>> given device?
>>> .
>>>
>>
>> That's a good point,
>>
>> Before this patch wbt is simply disabled if elevator is bfq.
>>
>> With this patch, if elevator is bfq while bfq doesn't throttle
>> any IO yet, wbt still is disabled unnecessarily.
> 
> It is not really disabled unnecessarily. Have you actually tested the
> performance of the combination? I did once and the results were just
> horrible (which is I made BFQ just disable wbt by default). The problem is
> that blk-wbt assumes certain model of underlying storage stack and hardware
> behavior and BFQ just does not fit in that model. For example BFQ wants to
> see as many requests as possible so that it can heavily reorder them,
> estimate think times of applications, etc. On the other hand blk-wbt
> assumes that if request latency gets higher, it means there is too much IO
> going on and we need to allow less of "lower priority" IO types to be
> submitted. These two go directly against one another and I was easily
> observing blk-wbt spiraling down to allowing only very small number of
> requests submitted while BFQ was idling waiting for more IO from the
> process that was currently scheduled.
> 

Thanks for your explanation, I understand that bfq and wbt should not
work together.

However, I wonder if CONFIG_BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED is disabled, or service
guarantee is not needed, does the above phenomenon still exist? I find
it hard to understand... Perhaps I need to do some test.

Thanks,
Kuai

> So I'm kind of wondering why you'd like to use blk-wbt and BFQ together...
> 
> 								Honza
>