Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq
From: Bart Van Assche <hidden>
Date: 2017-04-19 15:43:30
Also in:
lkml
On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 09:02 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
quoted
Il giorno 19 apr 2017, alle ore 07:01, Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@=
sandisk.com> ha scritto:
quoted
What API was used by the Android application to tell the I/O scheduler=
=20
quoted
to optimize for latency? Do you think that it would be sufficient if th=
e=20
quoted
application uses the ioprio_set() system call to set the I/O priority t=
o=20
quoted
IOPRIO_CLASS_RT?=20 That's exactly the hack we are using in our prototype. However, it can only be a temporary hack, because it mixes two slightly different concepts: 1) the activation of weight raising and other mechanisms for reducing latency for the target app, 2) the assignment of a different priority class, which (cleanly) means just that processes in a lower priority class will be served only when the processes of the target app have no pending I/O request. Finding a clean boosting API would be one of the main steps to turn our prototype into a usable solution.
Hello Paolo, Sorry but I do not agree that you call this use of I/O priorities a hack. I also do not agree that I/O requests submitted by processes in a lower priority class will only be served by the I/O scheduler when there are no pending requests in a higher class. It wouldn't be that hard to modify I/O schedulers that support I/O priorities to avoid the starvation you referred to. What I expect that will happen is that sooner or later a Linux distributor will start receiving bug reports about the heuristics for detecting interactive and streaming applications and that the person who will work on that bug report will realize that it will be easier to remove those heuristics from BFQ and to modify streaming applications and the software that starts interactive applications (e.g. a window manager) to use a higher I/O priority. Please also note that what I described above may require to introduce additional I/O priorities in the Linux kernel next to the existing I/O priorities RT, BE and NONE and that this may require to map multiple of these priorities onto the same drive priority. Bart.=