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;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Jan 2023 07:35:59 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
Cc:     Jinke Han <hanjinke.666@bytedance.com>, josef@toxicpanda.com,
        axboe@kernel.dk, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        yinxin.x@bytedance.com, jack@suse.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] blk-throtl: Introduce sync and async queues for
 blk-throtl
Message-ID: <Y7cKf7IH+FJ/6IyV@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20221226130505.7186-1-hanjinke.666@bytedance.com>
 <20230105161854.GA1259@blackbody.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20230105161854.GA1259@blackbody.suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 05:18:54PM +0100, Michal Koutn? wrote:
> I guess similar problem would arise for devices that are "naturally"
> slow.
> Then:
> a) it must have been solved elsewhere in the block layer (but it's
>    broken),
> b) it should be solved generically in the block layer (thus this is only
>    a partial solution).

Hard limits tend to make this sort of problems a lot more pronounced because
the existing mechanisms tend to break down for the users which are severely
throttled down even while the device as a whole is fairly idle. cpu.max
often triggers severe priority inversions too, so it isn't too surprising
that people hit severe priority inversion issues w/ io.max.

Another problem with blk-throttle is that it doesn't prioritize shared IOs
identified by bio_issue_as_root_blkg() like iolatency and iocost do, so
there can be very severe priority inversions when e.g. journal commit gets
trapped in a low priority cgroup further exacerbating issues like this.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun