lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: iowait boost is broken
On 06/09/21 09:50, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 Jun 2021 at 19:46:54 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 08:10:32PM +0100, Beata Michalska wrote:
> > > So back to the expectations.
> > > The main problem, as I see it, is what do we actually want to achieve with
> > > the I/O boosting? Is it supposed to compensate the time lost while waiting
> > > for the I/O request to be completed or is is supposed to optimize the rate
> > > at which I/O requests are being made.
> >
> > The latter, you want to increase the race of submission.
> >
> > > Do we want to boost I/O bound tasks by
> > > default, no limits applied or should we care about balancing performance
> > > vs power ? And unless those expectations are clearly stated, we might not
> > > get too far with any changes, really.
> >
> > You want to not increase power beyond what is needed to match the rate
> > of processing I suppose.
>
> Note that in some cases we also don't care about throughput, and would
> prefer to keep the frequency for some unimportant IO bound tasks (e.g.
> background logging deamons and such). Uclamp.max indicates this to some
> extent.

In theory, one can have a user space daemon that monitors IO (via BPF?) and
auto boost via uclamp. You can have allow/disallow list per-app too to setup
the limits.

So I say rm -rf iowait_boost and let's make it a user space problem :)

/me runs

--
Qais Yousef

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-10 17:29    [W:0.056 / U:0.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site