|author||Tejun Heo <email@example.com>||2013-01-09 08:05:11 -0800|
|committer||Tejun Heo <firstname.lastname@example.org>||2013-01-09 08:05:11 -0800|
cfq-iosched: enable full blkcg hierarchy support
With the previous two patches, all cfqg scheduling decisions are based on vfraction and ready for hierarchy support. The only thing which keeps the behavior flat is cfqg_flat_parent() which makes vfraction calculation consider all non-root cfqgs children of the root cfqg. Replace it with cfqg_parent() which returns the real parent. This enables full blkcg hierarchy support for cfq-iosched. For example, consider the following hierarchy. root / \ A:500 B:250 / \ AA:500 AB:1000 For simplicity, let's say all the leaf nodes have active tasks and are on service tree. For each leaf node, vfraction would be AA: (500 / 1500) * (500 / 750) =~ 0.2222 AB: (1000 / 1500) * (500 / 750) =~ 0.4444 B: (250 / 750) =~ 0.3333 and vdisktime will be distributed accordingly. For more detail, please refer to Documentation/block/cfq-iosched.txt. v2: cfq-iosched.txt updated to describe group scheduling as suggested by Vivek. v3: blkio-controller.txt updated. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <email@example.com> Acked-by: Vivek Goyal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/block')
1 files changed, 58 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/block/cfq-iosched.txt b/Documentation/block/cfq-iosched.txt
index d89b4fe724d7..a5eb7d19a65d 100644
@@ -102,6 +102,64 @@ processing of request. Therefore, increasing the value can imporve the
performace although this can cause the latency of some I/O to increase due
to more number of requests.
+CFQ Group scheduling
+CFQ supports blkio cgroup and has "blkio." prefixed files in each
+blkio cgroup directory. It is weight-based and there are four knobs
+for configuration - weight[_device] and leaf_weight[_device].
+Internal cgroup nodes (the ones with children) can also have tasks in
+them, so the former two configure how much proportion the cgroup as a
+whole is entitled to at its parent's level while the latter two
+configure how much proportion the tasks in the cgroup have compared to
+its direct children.
+Another way to think about it is assuming that each internal node has
+an implicit leaf child node which hosts all the tasks whose weight is
+configured by leaf_weight[_device]. Let's assume a blkio hierarchy
+composed of five cgroups - root, A, B, AA and AB - with the following
+weights where the names represent the hierarchy.
+ weight leaf_weight
+ root : 125 125
+ A : 500 750
+ B : 250 500
+ AA : 500 500
+ AB : 1000 500
+root never has a parent making its weight is meaningless. For backward
+compatibility, weight is always kept in sync with leaf_weight. B, AA
+and AB have no child and thus its tasks have no children cgroup to
+compete with. They always get 100% of what the cgroup won at the
+parent level. Considering only the weights which matter, the hierarchy
+looks like the following.
+ / | \
+ A B leaf
+ 500 250 125
+ / | \
+ AA AB leaf
+ 500 1000 750
+If all cgroups have active IOs and competing with each other, disk
+time will be distributed like the following.
+Distribution below root. The total active weight at this level is
+A:500 + B:250 + C:125 = 875.
+ root-leaf : 125 / 875 =~ 14%
+ A : 500 / 875 =~ 57%
+ B(-leaf) : 250 / 875 =~ 28%
+A has children and further distributes its 57% among the children and
+the implicit leaf node. The total active weight at this level is
+AA:500 + AB:1000 + A-leaf:750 = 2250.
+ A-leaf : ( 750 / 2250) * A =~ 19%
+ AA(-leaf) : ( 500 / 2250) * A =~ 12%
+ AB(-leaf) : (1000 / 2250) * A =~ 25%
CFQ IOPS Mode for group scheduling
Basic CFQ design is to provide priority based time slices. Higher priority