Re: [PATCHSET] blk-throttle: implement proper hierarchy support

[Tejun Heo]

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 2MB/sec), in long term it should still see 1MB/s rate.
> 
> 		T1	T2	T3	T4	T5	T6
> Parent group:		B1	B2	B3	B4	B5
> Child group:	B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	B6 
> 
> Above B1 to B6 are bios of 1MB size. T1 to T6 are 1 second time interval.
> B1 waits for T1 interval in child group and then for T2 interval in
> parent group and then gets dispatched. But a pipe line has formed in
> child group and B2 is waiting in child group in T2 slice. So penalty
> is not double.
> 
> So each group migration will add one extra wait period. In above case
> 5 bios dispatched in 6 seconds. Longer the sampling interval, delay
> remains the constant to one time interval and % penalty goes down.

Yeah, I think that's what *should* be happening but not what I'm
seeing.  I'm seeing ~15% penalty.  It works fine if there are more
than one active children but with a single child configured at the
same limit, it doesn't work as expected.  I'm a bit lost where the
difference is coming from.  Hmmm... also in the above example, we
really should be doing the following.

 		T1	T2	T3	T4	T5	T6
 Parent group:	B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	B6
 Child group:	B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	B6 

I mean, if there's no other IO going on, there's no point in delaying
the first IO.  ie. the slice should be considered as started before so
that B1 can be issued immediately, right?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/