3 ms·
Isn't that what BFQ scheduler was designed for ?
by skyde 9y ago
Isn't that what BFQ scheduler was designed for ?
- smarterclayton 9y agoYes, although even the 4.12 code can have substantial overhead vs NOOP (phoronix benchmarks, as an example). It's not a complete slam dunk - turning it on for io indifferent workloads might make sense, but not necessarily on all boxes. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-412-io&num=2 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-412...
- AstralStorm 9y agoPhoronix tested BFQ in low latency mode on throughput. Results are obvious. There is a simple twiddle for that. Of course they didn't test fairness or latency, that is too hard.
- smarterclayton 9y agoYeah, I'd love to see comprehensive benchmarks of competing workloads on larger scale boxes. If workload isolation can be achieved with moderately low overhead (15%?), there would be a lot of interest in pushing a default setup with BFQ in Kubernetes once more stable kernel streams have it available.