Re: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks

Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 04:37:41PM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 09:04:18PM +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
Hi All,

I have got excellent results of dm-ioband, that controls the disk I/O
bandwidth even when it accepts delayed write requests.

In this time, I ran some benchmarks with a high-end storage. The
reason was to avoid a performance bottleneck due to mechanical factors
such as seek time.

You can see the details of the benchmarks at:
http://people.valinux.co.jp/~ryov/dm-ioband/hps/

Hi Ryo,

I had a query about dm-ioband patches. IIUC, dm-ioband patches will break
the notion of process priority in CFQ because now dm-ioband device will
hold the bio and issue these to lower layers later based on which bio's
become ready. Hence actual bio submitting context might be different and
because cfq derives the io_context from current task, it will be broken.

To mitigate that problem, we probably need to implement Fernando's
suggestion of putting io_context pointer in bio.

Have you already done something to solve this issue?

Secondly, why do we have to create an additional dm-ioband device for
every device we want to control using rules. This looks little odd
atleast to me. Can't we keep it in line with rest of the controllers
where task grouping takes place using cgroup and rules are specified in
cgroup itself (The way Andrea Righi does for io-throttling patches)?

To avoid creation of stacking another device (dm-ioband) on top of every
device we want to subject to rules, I was thinking of maintaining an
rb-tree per request queue. Requests will first go into this rb-tree upon
__make_request() and then will filter down to elevator associated with the
queue (if there is one). This will provide us the control of releasing
bio's to elevaor based on policies (proportional weight, max bandwidth
etc) and no need of stacking additional block device.

I am working on some experimental proof of concept patches. It will take
some time though.

I was thinking of following.

- Adopt the Andrea Righi's style of specifying rules for devices and
group the tasks using cgroups.

- To begin with, adopt dm-ioband's approach of proportional bandwidth
controller. It makes sense to me limit the bandwidth usage only in
case of contention. If there is really a need to limit max bandwidth,
then probably we can do something to implement additional rules or
implement some policy switcher where user can decide what kind of
policies need to be implemented.

- Get rid of dm-ioband and instead buffer requests on an rb-tree on every
request queue which is controlled by some kind of cgroup rules.

It would be good to discuss above approach now whether it makes sense or
not. I think it is kind of fusion of io-throttling and dm-ioband patches
with additional idea of doing io-control just above elevator on the request
queue using an rb-tree.
Thanks Vivek. All sounds reasonable to me and I think this is be the right way
to proceed.

I'll try to design and implement your rb-tree per request-queue idea into my
io-throttle controller, maybe we can reuse it also for a more generic solution.
Feel free to send me your experimental proof of concept if you want, even if
it's not yet complete, I can review it, test and contribute.

Currently I have taken code from bio-cgroup to implement cgroups and to
provide functionality to associate a bio to a cgroup. I need this to be
able to queue the bio's at right node in the rb-tree and then also to be
able to take a decision when is the right time to release few requests.

Right now in crude implementation, I am working on making system boot.
Once patches are at least in little bit working shape, I will send it to you
to have a look.

Thanks
Vivek

I wonder... wouldn't be simpler to just use the memory controller
to retrieve this information starting from struct page?

I mean, following this path (in short, obviously using the appropriate
interfaces for locking and referencing the different objects):

cgrp = page->page_cgroup->mem_cgroup->css.cgroup

Once you get the cgrp it's very easy to use the corresponding controller
structure.

Actually, this is how I'm doing in cgroup-io-throttle to associate a bio
to a cgroup. What other functionalities/advantages bio-cgroup provide in
addition to that?

Thanks,
-Andrea
--
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

  • Re: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
    ... I have got excellent results of dm-ioband, ... bandwidth even when it accepts delayed write requests. ... io-throttle controller, maybe we can reuse it also for a more generic solution. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
    ... I have got excellent results of dm-ioband, ... bandwidth even when it accepts delayed write requests. ... cgroup itself? ... io-throttle controller, maybe we can reuse it also for a more generic solution. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
    ... I have got excellent results of dm-ioband, ... bandwidth even when it accepts delayed write requests. ... This will provide us the control of releasing ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm 1/5] i/o controller documentation
    ... +Bandwidth limiting rules offer better control over QoS with respect to priority ... when only low-priority requests are submitted ... +The goal of the I/O bandwidth controller is to improve performance ... +isolation of different control groups sharing the same block devices. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [dm-devel] Re: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
    ... I have got excellent results of dm-ioband, ... bandwidth even when it accepts delayed write requests. ... cgroup itself? ... io-throttle controller, maybe we can reuse it also for a more generic solution. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)