Re: [PATCH V3 02/16] block, bfq: add full hierarchical scheduling and cgroups support

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 03:43:01PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
> From: Arianna Avanzini <avanzini.arianna@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Add complete support for full hierarchical scheduling, with a cgroups
> interface. Full hierarchical scheduling is implemented through the
> 'entity' abstraction: both bfq_queues, i.e., the internal BFQ queues
> associated with processes, and groups are represented in general by
> entities. Given the bfq_queues associated with the processes belonging
> to a given group, the entities representing these queues are sons of
> the entity representing the group. At higher levels, if a group, say
> G, contains other groups, then the entity representing G is the parent
> entity of the entities representing the groups in G.
> 
> Hierarchical scheduling is performed as follows: if the timestamps of
> a leaf entity (i.e., of a bfq_queue) change, and such a change lets
> the entity become the next-to-serve entity for its parent entity, then
> the timestamps of the parent entity are recomputed as a function of
> the budget of its new next-to-serve leaf entity. If the parent entity
> belongs, in its turn, to a group, and its new timestamps let it become
> the next-to-serve for its parent entity, then the timestamps of the
> latter parent entity are recomputed as well, and so on. When a new
> bfq_queue must be set in service, the reverse path is followed: the
> next-to-serve highest-level entity is chosen, then its next-to-serve
> child entity, and so on, until the next-to-serve leaf entity is
> reached, and the bfq_queue that this entity represents is set in
> service.
> 
> Writeback is accounted for on a per-group basis, i.e., for each group,
> the async I/O requests of the processes of the group are enqueued in a
> distinct bfq_queue, and the entity associated with this queue is a
> child of the entity associated with the group.
> 
> Weights can be assigned explicitly to groups and processes through the
> cgroups interface, differently from what happens, for single
> processes, if the cgroups interface is not used (as explained in the
> description of the previous patch). In particular, since each node has
> a full scheduler, each group can be assigned its own weight.

Can we please hold off on cgroup support for now?  I've been trying to
chase down cpu scheduler latency issues lately and have some doubts
about implementing cgroup support by simply nesting the timelines like
this.

Thanks

-- 
tejun