p71924506
/
linux_old1
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

doc, block, bfq: better describe how to properly configure bfq 

Many users have reported the lack of an HOWTO for properly configuring
bfq as a function of the goal one wants to achieve (max
responsiveness, max throughput, ...). In fact, all needed details are
already provided in the documentation file bfq-iosched.txt. Yet the
document lacks guidance on which parameter descriptions to look
at. This commit adds some simple direction.

Signed-off-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Hickman <jeremywh7@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Laurentiu Nicola <lnicola@dend.ro>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
This commit is contained in:
Paolo Valente 2017-08-31 20:00:31 +02:00 committed by Jens Axboe
parent 233f0bf415
commit 2670cd1674
1 changed files with 54 additions and 24 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

78
Documentation/block/bfq-iosched.txt
View File

@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ CONTENTS
1-1 Personal systems
1-2 Server systems
2. How does BFQ work?
3. What are BFQ's tunable?
3. What are BFQ's tunables and how to properly configure BFQ?
4. BFQ group scheduling
4-1 Service guarantees provided
4-2 Interface
@ -147,12 +147,12 @@ plus a lot of code, are borrowed from CFQ.
contrast, BFQ may idle the device for a short time interval,
giving the process the chance to go on being served if it issues
a new request in time. Device idling typically boosts the
throughput on rotational devices, if processes do synchronous
and sequential I/O. In addition, under BFQ, device idling is
also instrumental in guaranteeing the desired throughput
fraction to processes issuing sync requests (see the description
of the slice_idle tunable in this document, or [1, 2], for more
details).
throughput on rotational devices and on non-queueing flash-based
devices, if processes do synchronous and sequential I/O. In
addition, under BFQ, device idling is also instrumental in
guaranteeing the desired throughput fraction to processes
issuing sync requests (see the description of the slice_idle
tunable in this document, or [1, 2], for more details).
- With respect to idling for service guarantees, if several
processes are competing for the device at the same time, but
@ -161,6 +161,15 @@ plus a lot of code, are borrowed from CFQ.
idling the device. Throughput is thus as high as possible in
this common scenario.
- On flash-based storage with internal queueing of commands
(typically NCQ), device idling happens to be always detrimental
for throughput. So, with these devices, BFQ performs idling
only when strictly needed for service guarantees, i.e., for
guaranteeing low latency or fairness. In these cases, overall
throughput may be sub-optimal. No solution currently exists to
provide both strong service guarantees and optimal throughput
on devices with internal queueing.
- If low-latency mode is enabled (default configuration), BFQ
executes some special heuristics to detect interactive and soft
real-time applications (e.g., video or audio players/streamers),
@ -248,13 +257,24 @@ plus a lot of code, are borrowed from CFQ.
the Idle class, to prevent it from starving.
3. What are BFQ's tunable?
==========================
3. What are BFQ's tunables and how to properly configure BFQ?
=============================================================
The tunables back_seek-max, back_seek_penalty, fifo_expire_async and
fifo_expire_sync below are the same as in CFQ. Their description is
just copied from that for CFQ. Some considerations in the description
of slice_idle are copied from CFQ too.
Most BFQ tunables affect service guarantees (basically latency and
fairness) and throughput. For full details on how to choose the
desired tradeoff between service guarantees and throughput, see the
parameters slice_idle, strict_guarantees and low_latency. For details
on how to maximise throughput, see slice_idle, timeout_sync and
max_budget. The other performance-related parameters have been
inherited from, and have been preserved mostly for compatibility with
CFQ. So far, no performance improvement has been reported after
changing the latter parameters in BFQ.
In particular, the tunables back_seek-max, back_seek_penalty,
fifo_expire_async and fifo_expire_sync below are the same as in
CFQ. Their description is just copied from that for CFQ. Some
considerations in the description of slice_idle are copied from CFQ
too.
per-process ioprio and weight
-----------------------------
@ -284,15 +304,17 @@ number of seeks and see improved throughput.
Setting slice_idle to 0 will remove all the idling on queues and one
should see an overall improved throughput on faster storage devices
like multiple SATA/SAS disks in hardware RAID configuration.
like multiple SATA/SAS disks in hardware RAID configuration, as well
as flash-based storage with internal command queueing (and
parallelism).
So depending on storage and workload, it might be useful to set
slice_idle=0. In general for SATA/SAS disks and software RAID of
SATA/SAS disks keeping slice_idle enabled should be useful. For any
configurations where there are multiple spindles behind single LUN
(Host based hardware RAID controller or for storage arrays), setting
slice_idle=0 might end up in better throughput and acceptable
latencies.
(Host based hardware RAID controller or for storage arrays), or with
flash-based fast storage, setting slice_idle=0 might end up in better
throughput and acceptable latencies.
Idling is however necessary to have service guarantees enforced in
case of differentiated weights or differentiated I/O-request lengths.
@ -311,13 +333,14 @@ There is an important flipside for idling: apart from the above cases
where it is beneficial also for throughput, idling can severely impact
throughput. One important case is random workload. Because of this
issue, BFQ tends to avoid idling as much as possible, when it is not
beneficial also for throughput. As a consequence of this behavior, and
of further issues described for the strict_guarantees tunable,
short-term service guarantees may be occasionally violated. And, in
some cases, these guarantees may be more important than guaranteeing
maximum throughput. For example, in video playing/streaming, a very
low drop rate may be more important than maximum throughput. In these
cases, consider setting the strict_guarantees parameter.
beneficial also for throughput (as detailed in Section 2). As a
consequence of this behavior, and of further issues described for the
strict_guarantees tunable, short-term service guarantees may be
occasionally violated. And, in some cases, these guarantees may be
more important than guaranteeing maximum throughput. For example, in
video playing/streaming, a very low drop rate may be more important
than maximum throughput. In these cases, consider setting the
strict_guarantees parameter.
strict_guarantees
-----------------
@ -419,6 +442,13 @@ The default value is 0, which enables auto-tuning: BFQ sets max_budget
to the maximum number of sectors that can be served during
timeout_sync, according to the estimated peak rate.
For specific devices, some users have occasionally reported to have
reached a higher throughput by setting max_budget explicitly, i.e., by
setting max_budget to a higher value than 0. In particular, they have
set max_budget to higher values than those to which BFQ would have set
it with auto-tuning. An alternative way to achieve this goal is to
just increase the value of timeout_sync, leaving max_budget equal to 0.
weights
-------