Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755301AbZCRHZf (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:25:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753866AbZCRHZQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:25:16 -0400 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:57549 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752136AbZCRHZO (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:25:14 -0400 Message-ID: <49C0A171.8060009@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:23:29 +0800 From: Gui Jianfeng User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (Windows/20070716) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vivek Goyal CC: Dhaval Giani , nauman@google.com, dpshah@google.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, mikew@google.com, fchecconi@gmail.com, paolo.valente@unimore.it, jens.axboe@oracle.com, ryov@valinux.co.jp, fernando@intellilink.co.jp, s-uchida@ap.jp.nec.com, taka@valinux.co.jp, arozansk@redhat.com, jmoyer@redhat.com, oz-kernel@redhat.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, menage@google.com, peterz@infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] Documentation References: <1236823015-4183-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <1236823015-4183-2-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <20090312100054.GA8024@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090312140450.GE10919@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20090312140450.GE10919@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2185 Lines: 58 Vivek Goyal wrote: >> Hi Vivek, >> >> I would be interested in knowing if these are the results expected? >> > > Hi Dhaval, > > Good question. Keeping current expectation in mind, yes these are expected > results. To begin with, current expectations are that try to emulate > cfq behavior and the kind of service differentiation we get between > threads of different priority, same kind of service differentiation we > should get from different cgroups. > > Having said that, in theory a more accurate estimate should be amount > of actual disk time a queue/cgroup got. I have put a tracing message > to keep track of total service received by a queue. If you run "blktrace" > then you can see that. Ideally, total service received by two threads > over a period of time should be in same proportion as their cgroup > weights. > > It will not be easy to achive it given the constraints we have got in > terms of how to accurately we can account for disk time actually used by a > queue in certain situations. So to begin with I am targetting that > try to meet same kind of service differentation between cgroups as > cfq provides between threads and then slowly refine it to see how > close one can come to get accurate numbers in terms of "total_serivce" > received by each queue. Hi Vivek, I simply tested with blktrace opened. I create two groups and set ioprio 4 and 7 respectively(the corresponding weight should 4:1, right?), and start two dd concurrently. UUIC, Ideally, the proportion of service two dd got should be 4:1 in a period of time when they are running. I extract *served* value from blktrace output and sum them up. I found the proportion of the sum of *served* value is about 1.7:1 Am i missing something? I extract the following highlight value 8,0 0 0 18.914906549 0 m N 6601ioq served=*0x13* total service=0x184d > > Thanks > Vivek > > > -- Regards Gui Jianfeng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/