Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...>
Cc: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@...>, LKML <linux-kernel@...>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...>
Date: Friday, January 11, 2008 - 11:29 am

Peter Zijlstra wrote:

Very true. A seeky intensive process wouldn't be limited at all. And I'm
sure there're better ways/models to satisfy my needs.

A suggestion (off-list) has been to try with ionice that seems to be the
right solution to limit the I/O activity of single processes, but it
doens't allow to define policies based on UIDs or GIDs.

BTW I don't have any number to compare the effectiveness of the priority
approach vs the throttling approach. Here is a very quick test made on
my PC (not sure if glxgears is the right benchmark to evaluate
the system responsiveness):

3564 frames in 5.0 seconds = 711.722 FPS
3953 frames in 5.0 seconds = 790.598 FPS
3969 frames in 5.0 seconds = 793.794 FPS
3769 frames in 5.0 seconds = 753.189 FPS
2877 frames in 5.0 seconds = 572.843 FPS
3481 frames in 5.0 seconds = 696.071 FPS
3775 frames in 5.0 seconds = 751.404 FPS
2781 frames in 5.0 seconds = 556.118 FPS
3209 frames in 5.0 seconds = 641.064 FPS
2843 frames in 5.0 seconds = 565.697 FPS
3652 frames in 5.0 seconds = 730.253 FPS
3669 frames in 5.0 seconds = 733.734 FPS
3797 frames in 5.0 seconds = 759.234 FPS
3883 frames in 5.0 seconds = 776.488 FPS
3895 frames in 5.0 seconds = 778.868 FPS
3845 frames in 5.0 seconds = 768.968 FPS
3829 frames in 5.0 seconds = 765.793 FPS


3763 frames in 5.0 seconds = 752.539 FPS
3818 frames in 5.0 seconds = 763.483 FPS
3443 frames in 5.0 seconds = 688.597 FPS
3202 frames in 5.0 seconds = 640.390 FPS
3807 frames in 5.0 seconds = 761.391 FPS
3053 frames in 5.0 seconds = 610.539 FPS
2759 frames in 5.0 seconds = 551.790 FPS
2975 frames in 5.0 seconds = 594.873 FPS
2993 frames in 5.0 seconds = 596.709 FPS
3250 frames in 5.0 seconds = 649.857 FPS
3494 frames in 5.0 seconds = 698.688 FPS

-Andrea
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling, Andrea Righi, (Thu Jan 10, 6:45 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling, Balbir Singh, (Fri Jan 11, 11:59 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling, Andrea Righi, (Fri Jan 11, 12:32 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling, Peter Zijlstra, (Sat Jan 12, 5:46 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling, Balbir Singh, (Sat Jan 12, 6:57 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling, Peter Zijlstra, (Sat Jan 12, 7:10 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling, Andrea Righi, (Sat Jan 12, 2:01 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling, Balbir Singh, (Sun Jan 13, 12:46 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling, David Newall, (Fri Jan 11, 10:05 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling, Andrea Righi, (Fri Jan 11, 11:44 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling, David Newall, (Wed Jan 16, 3:21 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling, Bill Davidsen, (Thu Jan 10, 9:50 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling, Andrea Righi, (Fri Jan 11, 6:28 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling, Peter Zijlstra, (Fri Jan 11, 10:20 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling, Andrea Righi, (Fri Jan 11, 11:29 am)