On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 04:54:55PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 05:05:13PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Following inline patch implements transferring child's start time to
> > parent, if parent slice had expired at the time of bio migration.
> >
> > I does seem to
Hey,
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 05:05:13PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Following inline patch implements transferring child's start time to
> parent, if parent slice had expired at the time of bio migration.
>
> I does seem to help a lot on my machine. Can you please give it a try.
Cool, will give
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 12:14:18PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 03:08:23PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
> > parent: b1 b2 b3 b4 b5
> > child: b1 b2
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 12:14:18PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 03:08:23PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
> > parent: b1 b2 b3 b4 b5
> > child: b1 b2
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 03:08:23PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
> parent: b1 b2 b3 b4 b5
> child:b1 b2 b3 b4 b5
>
>
> So continuity b
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 11:57:51AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
[..]
> > # set limit to 100 bytes/second both in parent and child cgroup
> > # dd if=/dev/vdb of=/dev/null iflag=direct
> >
> > I will capture blktrace and analyze it though to understand better
> > what's happening.
>
> Try using la
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 11:57:51AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 01:56:52PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > Yeah, I think that's what *should* be happening but not what I'm
> > > seeing. I'm seeing ~15% penalty.
> >
> > What test are you running. I am running a simple dd with
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 01:56:52PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Yeah, I think that's what *should* be happening but not what I'm
> > seeing. I'm seeing ~15% penalty.
>
> What test are you running. I am running a simple dd with directIO and
> I am not seeing any penalty.
Combination of dd and a
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 04:13:07PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Vivek.
>
> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 03:31:39PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > I think my example was little flawed previously. I think you are right.
> > Penalty is not probably as bad as I have been thinking.
> >
> > So if both pa
Hello, Vivek.
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 03:31:39PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> I think my example was little flawed previously. I think you are right.
> Penalty is not probably as bad as I have been thinking.
>
> So if both parent and child have limit of 1MB/s and application is doing
> IO (say at
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:11:30PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey,
>
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > It should not. Why do you think in flat model an application which
> > throttles itself will be penalized.
> >
> > So application issue an bio of size 1MB in a group of
Hey,
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> It should not. Why do you think in flat model an application which
> throttles itself will be penalized.
>
> So application issue an bio of size 1MB in a group of rate 1MB/s. bio
> gets queued and gets dispatched after 1 second. Almost i
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 11:49:53AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 02:45:14PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > I did not understand this point. In flat model, application issuing
> > at configured page will not get penalized.
> >
> > This penalty is coming from the fact
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 11:44:26AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
[..]
> Also, if you're actually thinking about reimplementing blk-throttle,
> please do consider the followings.
>
> * Currently, blk-throttle doesn't throttle the number of bios being
> queued. Note that this breaks the basic back-pre
Hello,
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 02:45:14PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> I did not understand this point. In flat model, application issuing
> at configured page will not get penalized.
>
> This penalty is coming from the fact that we are moving bios after the
> wait and make them wait in another qu
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 11:29:33AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Vivek.
>
> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 02:17:48PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Sorry, did not understand how did you arrive at 15% penalty. I think
> > in worst case it will be 50%. Assume size of bio is 1MB. So it will
>
> Oh, that
Hello, Vivek.
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 02:08:15PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> G1
> / \
> T1 G2
> |
> T2
>
> G1 and G2 are 2 groups and T1 and T2 are tasks in groups respectively.
> Assu
Hello, Vivek.
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 02:17:48PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Sorry, did not understand how did you arrive at 15% penalty. I think
> in worst case it will be 50%. Assume size of bio is 1MB. So it will
Oh, that's the number I got by running test.
> wait for 1 second in child group
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 10:57:01AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey, Vivek.
>
> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 01:34:28PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 05:39:18PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> > > While this patchset contains many patches, the implementation is
> > > pretty
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 01:34:28PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 05:39:18PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> [..]
> > While this patchset contains many patches, the implementation is
> > pretty straight-forward. throtl_grp's form a tree anchored at
> > throtl_data and bios climb
Hey, Vivek.
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 01:34:28PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 05:39:18PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> [..]
> > While this patchset contains many patches, the implementation is
> > pretty straight-forward. throtl_grp's form a tree anchored at
> > throtl_data an
On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 05:39:18PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
[..]
> While this patchset contains many patches, the implementation is
> pretty straight-forward. throtl_grp's form a tree anchored at
> throtl_data and bios climb the tree as they get dispatched at each
> level. The bios which reach th
blk-throttle is the last controller with broken hierarchy support
making blkcg the last one tagged with .broken_hierarchy. This
patchset implements hierarchy support for blk-throttle. The semantics
is pretty simple - limits on an intermediate node applies to the whole
subtree and the statistics r
23 matches
Mail list logo
