[RFC][patch 0/11][CFQ-cgroup]Yet another I/O bandwidth controlling subsystem for CGroups based on CFQ

[Satoshi UCHIDA]

This patchset introduce "Yet Another" I/O bandwidth controlling
subsystem for cgroups based on CFQ (called 2 layer CFQ).

The idea of 2 layer CFQ is to build fairness control per group on the top of existing CFQ control.
We add a new data structure called CFQ meta-data on the top of
cfqd in order to control I/O bandwidth for cgroups.
CFQ meta-data control cfq_datas by service tree (rb-tree) and
CFQ algorithm when synchronous I/O.
An active cfqd controls queue for cfq by service tree.
Namely, the CFQ meta-data control traditional CFQ data.
the CFQ data runs conventionally.

           cfqmd     cfqmd     (cfqmd = cfq meta-data)
            |          |
  cfqc  -- cfqd ----- cfqd     (cfqd = cfq data,
            |          |        cfqc = cfq cgroup data)
  cfqc  --[cfqd]----- cfqd
            ↑
　　　　　conventional control.


This patchset is gainst 2.6.25-rc2-mm1.


Last week, we found a patchset from Vasily Tarasov (Open VZ) that
posted to LKML.
   [RFC][PATCH 0/9] cgroups: block: cfq: I/O bandwidth controlling subsystem for CGroups based on CFQ
  http://lwn.net/Articles/274652/

Our subsystem and  Vasily's one are similar on the point of modifying
the CFQ subsystem, but they are different on the point of the layer of
implementation. Vasily's subsystem add a new layer for cgroup between
cfqd and cfqq, but our subsystem add a new layer for cgroup on the top
of cfqd.

The different of implementation from OpenVZ's one are:
   * top layer algorithm is also based on service tree, and
   * top layer program is stored in the different file (block/cfq-cgroup.c).

We hope to discuss not which is better implementation, but what is the
best way to implement I/O bandwidth control based on CFQ here.

Please give us your comments, questions and suggestions.



Finally, we introduce a usage of our implementation.

* Preparation for using 2 layer CFQ

 1. Adopt this patchset to kernel 2.6.25-rc2-mm1.

 2. Build kernel with CFQ-CGROUP option.

 3. Restart new kernel.

 4. Mount cfq_cgroup special device to device directory.
    ex.
      mkdir /dev/cgroup
      mount -t cgroup -o cfq_cgroup cfq_cgroup /dev/cgroup


* Usage of grouping control.
 - Create New group
      Make new directory under /dev/cgroup.
      For example, the following command genrerates a 'test1' group.
          mkdir /dev/cgroup/test1

 - Insert task to group
      Write process id(pid) on "tasks" entry in the corresponding group.
      For example, the following command sets task with pid 1100 into test1 group.
         echo 1100 > /dev/cgroup/test1/tasks
      Child tasks of this tasks is also inserted into test1 group.

 - Change I/O priority of group
     Write priority on "cfq_cgroup.io_prio" entry in corresponding group.
     For example, the following command sets priority of rank 2 to 'test1' group.
         echo 2 > /dev/cgroup/test1/tasks
     I/O priority for cgroups takes the value from 0 to 7. It is same as
     existing per-task CFQ.

     
 - Change I/O priority of task
     Use existing "ionice" command.


* Example
 Two I/O load (dd command) runs some conditions.
  
 - When they are same group and same priority,

   program
     #!/bin/sh
     echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/tasks
     echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/test/tasks
     ionice -c 2 -n 3 dd if=/internal/data1 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1K &
     ionice -c 2 -n 3 dd if=/internal/data2 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1K &
     echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/test2/tasks
     echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/tasks
    
   result
     1024+0 records in
     1024+0 records out
     1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 27.7676 s, 38.7 MB/s
     1024+0 records in
     1024+0 records out
     1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 28.8482 s, 37.2 MB/s

    These tasks was fair, therefore they finished at similar time.


 - When they are same group and different priorities (0 and 7),

    program
      #!/bin/sh
      echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/tasks
      echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/test/tasks
      ionice -c 2 -n 0 dd if=/internal/data1 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1K &
      ionice -c 2 -n 7 dd if=/internal/data2 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1K &
      echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/test2/tasks
      echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/tasks

    result
      1024+0 records in
      1024+0 records out
      1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 18.8373 s, 57.0 MB/s
      1024+0 records in
      1024+0 records out
      1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 28.108 s, 38.2 MB/s


     The first task (copy data1) had high priority, therefore it finished at fast.
 
 - When they are different groups and different priorities (0 and 7),

    program
      #!/bin/sh
      echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/tasks
      echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/test/tasks
      ionice -c 2 -n 0 dd if=/internal/data1 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1K 
      echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/test2/tasks
      ionice -c 2 -n 7 dd if=/internal/data2 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1K 
      echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/tasks

    result
      1024+0 records in
      1024+0 records out
      1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 28.1661 s, 38.1 MB/s
      1024+0 records in
      1024+0 records out
      1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 28.8486 s, 37.2 MB/s

     The first task (copy data1) had  high priority, but they finished at similar time.
     Because their groups had same priority.

 - When they are different groups with different priorities (7 and 0)
   and same priority,

    program
      #!/bin/sh
      echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/tasks
      echo 7 > /dev/cgroup/test/cfq_cgroup.ioprio
      echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/test/tasks
      ionice -c 2 -n 0 dd if=/internal/data1 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1K >& test1.log &
      echo 0 > /dev/cgroup/test2/cfq_cgroup.ioprio
      echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/test2/tasks
      ionice -c 2 -n 7 dd if=/internal/data2 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1K >& test2.log &
      echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/tasks

    result
      === test1.log ===
        1024+0 records in
        1024+0 records out
        1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 27.3971 s, 39.2 MB/s
      === test2.log ===
        1024+0 records inmorre
        1024+0 records out
        1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 17.3837 s, 61.8 MB/s

     This first task (copy data1) had high priority, but they finished at late.
     Because its group had low priority.


Regards,
==========================
Satoshi UCHIDA <s-uchida@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
     NEC Coropration.

--
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/