Re: RFC: I/O bandwidth controller

Hi,

2008/8/13 Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@xxxxxxxxx>:
Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote:
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 22:29 +0900, Andrea Righi wrote:
Andrea Righi wrote:
Hirokazu Takahashi wrote:
3. & 4. & 5. - I/O bandwidth shaping & General design aspects

The implementation of an I/O scheduling algorithm is to a certain extent
influenced by what we are trying to achieve in terms of I/O bandwidth
shaping, but, as discussed below, the required accuracy can determine
the layer where the I/O controller has to reside. Off the top of my
head, there are three basic operations we may want perform:
- I/O nice prioritization: ionice-like approach.
- Proportional bandwidth scheduling: each process/group of processes
has a weight that determines the share of bandwidth they receive.
- I/O limiting: set an upper limit to the bandwidth a group of tasks
can use.
Use a deadline-based IO scheduling could be an interesting path to be
explored as well, IMHO, to try to guarantee per-cgroup minimum bandwidth
requirements.
Please note that the only thing we can do is to guarantee minimum
bandwidth requirement when there is contention for an IO resource, which
is precisely what a proportional bandwidth scheduler does. An I missing
something?
Correct. Proportional bandwidth automatically allows to guarantee min
requirements (instead of IO limiting approach, that needs additional
mechanisms to achive this).

In any case there's no guarantee for a cgroup/application to sustain
i.e. 10MB/s on a certain device, but this is a hard problem anyway, and
the best we can do is to try to satisfy "soft" constraints.
I think guaranteeing the minimum I/O bandwidth is very important. In the
business site, especially in streaming service system, administrator requires
the functionality to satisfy QoS or performance of their service.
Of course, IO throttling is important, but, personally, I think guaranteeing
the minimum bandwidth is more important than limitation of maximum bandwidth
to satisfy the requirement in real business sites.
And I know Andrea's io-throttle patch supports the latter case well and it is
very stable.
But, the first case(guarantee the minimum bandwidth) is not supported in any
patches.
Is there any plans to support it? and Is there any problems in implementing it?
I think if IO controller can support guaranteeing the minimum bandwidth and
work-conserving mode simultaneously, it more easily satisfies the requirement
of the business sites.
Additionally, I didn't understand "Proportional bandwidth automatically allows
to guarantee min
requirements" and "soft constraints".
Can you give me a advice about this ?
Thanks in advance.

Dong-Jae Kang
I think this is what dm-ioband does.

Let's say you make two groups share the same disk, and give them
70% of the bandwidth the disk physically has and 30% respectively.
This means the former group is almost guaranteed to be able to use
70% of the bandwidth even when the latter one is issuing quite
a lot of I/O requests.

Yes, I know there exist head seek lags with traditional magnetic disks,
so it's important to improve the algorithm to reduce this overhead.

And I think it is also possible to add a new scheduling policy to
guarantee the minimum bandwidth. It might be cool if some group can
use guranteed bandwidths and the other share the rest on proportional
bandwidth policy.

Thanks,
Hirokazu Takahashi.
With IO limiting approach minimum requirements are supposed to be
guaranteed if the user configures a generic block device so that the sum
of the limits doesn't exceed the total IO bandwidth of that device. But,
in principle, there's nothing in "throttling" that guarantees "fairness"
among different cgroups doing IO on the same block devices, that means
there's nothing to guarantee minimum requirements (and this is the
reason because I liked the Satoshi's CFQ-cgroup approach together with
io-throttle).

A more complicated issue is how to evaluate the total IO bandwidth of a
generic device. We can use some kind of averaging/prediction, but
basically it would be inaccurate due to the mechanic of disks (head
seeks, but also caching, buffering mechanisms implemented directly into
the device, etc.). It's a hard problem. And the same problem exists also
for proportional bandwidth as well, in terms of IO rate predictability I
mean.
BTW as I said in a previous email, an interesting path to be explored
IMHO could be to think in terms of IO time. So, look at the time an IO
request is issued to the drive, look at the time the request is served,
evaluate the difference and charge the consumed IO time to the
appropriate cgroup. Then dispatch IO requests in function of the
consumed IO time debts / credits, using for example a token-bucket
strategy. And probably the best place to implement the IO time
accounting is the elevator.
Please note that the seek time for a specific IO request is strongly
correlated with the IO requests that preceded it, which means that the
owner of that request is not the only one to blame if it takes too long
to process it. In other words, with the algorithm you propose we may end
up charging the wrong guy.

mmh.. yes. The only scenario I can imagine where this solution is not
fair is when there're a lot of guys always requesting the same near
blocks and a single guy looking for a single distant block (supposing
disk seeks are more expensive than read/write ops).

In this case it would be fair to charge a huge amount only to the guy
requesting the single distant block and distribute the cost of the seek
to move back the head equally among the other guys. Using the algorighm
I proposed, instead, both the single "bad" guy and the first "good" guy
that moves back the disk head would spend a large sum of IO credits.


I have a question about your description.
In I/O controlling, how do you think about the meaning of "fair" among cgroups ?
These days I was confused about it.
IMHO, if they have a same access time and same access opportunity for
disk I/O regardless of their I/O style(sequential / random / mixed /
…), I think it is fare.
Of course, in this fair situation, the cgroups with same priority or
weight can have a different I/O bandwidth. but, I think it will be in
reasonable range.
So, if other cgroups with fast I/O was sacrificed for the cgroup with
too late I/O to equaliz the I/O quantity, it can be considered
"unfair" for the cgroup with fast I/O
Do I have something wrong about the "fair" concept?
This is just my opinion :)
I welcome and appreciate for other opinions and comments about this

PS)
Andrea, this question is not related to the io-controller
But, I just wonder your another project, network io-throttle, is going
on now? My colleague has researched the similar project and he is try
to implement another one. And i am also interested in net
io-controller. Thank you

Dong-Jae Kang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages

  • [PATCH 1/2] dm-ioband: I/O bandwidth controller v1.12.0: main part
    ... bandwidth controller implemented as a device-mapper driver and can ... The major change of this release is that a new bandwidth control ... and it allows users to set a minimum and maximum I/O bandwidth ... Each ioband group has its own weight and tokens. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • [PATCH 1/1] dm-ioband: I/O bandwidth controller
    ... Dm-ioband is an I/O bandwidth controller implemented as a device-mapper ... Every ioband device has one ioband group, which by default is called the ... Additional bandwidth control ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: RFC: I/O bandwidth controller
    ... The implementation of an I/O scheduling algorithm is to a certain extent ... Proportional bandwidth scheduling: each process/group of processes ... Please note that the only thing we can do is to guarantee minimum ... Of course, IO throttling is important, but, personally, I think guaranteeing the minimum bandwidth is more important than limitation of maximum bandwidth to satisfy the requirement in real business sites. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: RFC: I/O bandwidth controller (was Re: Too many I/O controller patches)
    ... The kernel has had somewhat adavanced I/O control capabilities for quite ... Cgroups-aware I/O scheduling (being able to define arbitrary ... Being able to perform I/O bandwidth control independently on each ... have the cgroups infrastructure so, regarding this problem, we would ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: RFC: I/O bandwidth controller
    ... The implementation of an I/O scheduling algorithm is to a certain extent ... Proportional bandwidth scheduling: each process/group of processes ... Please note that the only thing we can do is to guarantee minimum ... request is issued to the drive, look at the time the request is served, ...
    (Linux-Kernel)