RFC: I/O bandwidth controller
Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
fernando at oss.ntt.co.jp
Tue Aug 5 23:41:32 PDT 2008
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:18 +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> > This RFC ended up being a bit longer than I had originally intended, but
> > hopefully it will serve as the start of a fruitful discussion.
> Thanks a lot for posting the RFC.
> > *** Goals
> > 1. Cgroups-aware I/O scheduling (being able to define arbitrary
> > groupings of processes and treat each group as a single scheduling
> > entity).
> > 2. Being able to perform I/O bandwidth control independently on each
> > device.
> > 3. I/O bandwidth shaping.
> > 4. Scheduler-independent I/O bandwidth control.
> > 5. Usable with stacking devices (md, dm and other devices of that
> > ilk).
> > 6. I/O tracking (handle buffered and asynchronous I/O properly).
> > The list of goals above is not exhaustive and it is also likely to
> > contain some not-so-nice-to-have features so your feedback would be
> > appreciated.
> I'd like to add the following item to the goals.
> 7. Selectable from multiple bandwidth control policy (proportion,
> maximum rate limiting, ...) like I/O scheduler.
Yep, makes sense.
> > *** How to move on
> > As discussed before, it probably makes sense to have both a block layer
> > I/O controller and a elevator-based one, and they could certainly
> > cohabitate. As discussed before, all of them need I/O tracking
> > capabilities so I would like to suggest the plan below to get things
> > started:
> > - Improve the I/O tracking patches (see (6) above) until they are in
> > mergeable shape.
> > - Fix CFQ and AS to use the new I/O tracking functionality to show its
> > benefits. If the performance impact is acceptable this should suffice to
> > convince the respective maintainer and get the I/O tracking patches
> > merged.
> > - Implement a block layer resource controller. dm-ioband is a working
> > solution and feature rich but its dependency on the dm infrastructure is
> > likely to find opposition (the dm layer does not handle barriers
> > properly and the maximum size of I/O requests can be limited in some
> > cases). In such a case, we could either try to build a standalone
> > resource controller based on dm-ioband (which would probably hook into
> > generic_make_request) or try to come up with something new.
> > - If the I/O tracking patches make it into the kernel we could move on
> > and try to get the Cgroup extensions to CFQ and AS mentioned before (see
> > (1), (2), and (3) above for details) merged.
> > - Delegate the task of controlling the rate at which a task can
> > generate dirty pages to the memory controller.
> I agree with your plan.
> We keep bio-cgroup improving and porting to the latest kernel.
Having more users of bio-cgroup would probably help to get it merged, so
we'll certainly send patches as soon as we get our cfq prototype in
More information about the Containers