| BFQ (Budget Fair Queueing) |
| ========================== |
| |
| BFQ is a proportional-share I/O scheduler, with some extra |
| low-latency capabilities. In addition to cgroups support (blkio or io |
| controllers), BFQ's main features are: |
| - BFQ guarantees a high system and application responsiveness, and a |
| low latency for time-sensitive applications, such as audio or video |
| players; |
| - BFQ distributes bandwidth, and not just time, among processes or |
| groups (switching back to time distribution when needed to keep |
| throughput high). |
| |
| In its default configuration, BFQ privileges latency over |
| throughput. So, when needed for achieving a lower latency, BFQ builds |
| schedules that may lead to a lower throughput. If your main or only |
| goal, for a given device, is to achieve the maximum-possible |
| throughput at all times, then do switch off all low-latency heuristics |
| for that device, by setting low_latency to 0. Full details in Section 3. |
| |
| On average CPUs, the current version of BFQ can handle devices |
| performing at most ~30K IOPS; at most ~50 KIOPS on faster CPUs. As a |
| reference, 30-50 KIOPS correspond to very high bandwidths with |
| sequential I/O (e.g., 8-12 GB/s if I/O requests are 256 KB large), and |
| to 120-200 MB/s with 4KB random I/O. BFQ has not yet been tested on |
| multi-queue devices. |
| |
| The table of contents follow. Impatients can just jump to Section 3. |
| |
| CONTENTS |
| |
| 1. When may BFQ be useful? |
| 1-1 Personal systems |
| 1-2 Server systems |
| 2. How does BFQ work? |
| 3. What are BFQ's tunable? |
| 4. BFQ group scheduling |
| 4-1 Service guarantees provided |
| 4-2 Interface |
| |
| 1. When may BFQ be useful? |
| ========================== |
| |
| BFQ provides the following benefits on personal and server systems. |
| |
| 1-1 Personal systems |
| -------------------- |
| |
| Low latency for interactive applications |
| |
| Regardless of the actual background workload, BFQ guarantees that, for |
| interactive tasks, the storage device is virtually as responsive as if |
| it was idle. For example, even if one or more of the following |
| background workloads are being executed: |
| - one or more large files are being read, written or copied, |
| - a tree of source files is being compiled, |
| - one or more virtual machines are performing I/O, |
| - a software update is in progress, |
| - indexing daemons are scanning filesystems and updating their |
| databases, |
| starting an application or loading a file from within an application |
| takes about the same time as if the storage device was idle. As a |
| comparison, with CFQ, NOOP or DEADLINE, and in the same conditions, |
| applications experience high latencies, or even become unresponsive |
| until the background workload terminates (also on SSDs). |
| |
| Low latency for soft real-time applications |
| |
| Also soft real-time applications, such as audio and video |
| players/streamers, enjoy a low latency and a low drop rate, regardless |
| of the background I/O workload. As a consequence, these applications |
| do not suffer from almost any glitch due to the background workload. |
| |
| Higher speed for code-development tasks |
| |
| If some additional workload happens to be executed in parallel, then |
| BFQ executes the I/O-related components of typical code-development |
| tasks (compilation, checkout, merge, ...) much more quickly than CFQ, |
| NOOP or DEADLINE. |
| |
| High throughput |
| |
| On hard disks, BFQ achieves up to 30% higher throughput than CFQ, and |
| up to 150% higher throughput than DEADLINE and NOOP, with all the |
| sequential workloads considered in our tests. With random workloads, |
| and with all the workloads on flash-based devices, BFQ achieves, |
| instead, about the same throughput as the other schedulers. |
| |
| Strong fairness, bandwidth and delay guarantees |
| |
| BFQ distributes the device throughput, and not just the device time, |
| among I/O-bound applications in proportion their weights, with any |
| workload and regardless of the device parameters. From these bandwidth |
| guarantees, it is possible to compute tight per-I/O-request delay |
| guarantees by a simple formula. If not configured for strict service |
| guarantees, BFQ switches to time-based resource sharing (only) for |
| applications that would otherwise cause a throughput loss. |
| |
| 1-2 Server systems |
| ------------------ |
| |
| Most benefits for server systems follow from the same service |
| properties as above. In particular, regardless of whether additional, |
| possibly heavy workloads are being served, BFQ guarantees: |
| |
| . audio and video-streaming with zero or very low jitter and drop |
| rate; |
| |
| . fast retrieval of WEB pages and embedded objects; |
| |
| . real-time recording of data in live-dumping applications (e.g., |
| packet logging); |
| |
| . responsiveness in local and remote access to a server. |
| |
| |
| 2. How does BFQ work? |
| ===================== |
| |
| BFQ is a proportional-share I/O scheduler, whose general structure, |
| plus a lot of code, are borrowed from CFQ. |
| |
| - Each process doing I/O on a device is associated with a weight and a |
| (bfq_)queue. |
| |
| - BFQ grants exclusive access to the device, for a while, to one queue |
| (process) at a time, and implements this service model by |
| associating every queue with a budget, measured in number of |
| sectors. |
| |
| - After a queue is granted access to the device, the budget of the |
| queue is decremented, on each request dispatch, by the size of the |
| request. |
| |
| - The in-service queue is expired, i.e., its service is suspended, |
| only if one of the following events occurs: 1) the queue finishes |
| its budget, 2) the queue empties, 3) a "budget timeout" fires. |
| |
| - The budget timeout prevents processes doing random I/O from |
| holding the device for too long and dramatically reducing |
| throughput. |
| |
| - Actually, as in CFQ, a queue associated with a process issuing |
| sync requests may not be expired immediately when it empties. In |
| contrast, BFQ may idle the device for a short time interval, |
| giving the process the chance to go on being served if it issues |
| a new request in time. Device idling typically boosts the |
| throughput on rotational devices, if processes do synchronous |
| and sequential I/O. In addition, under BFQ, device idling is |
| also instrumental in guaranteeing the desired throughput |
| fraction to processes issuing sync requests (see the description |
| of the slice_idle tunable in this document, or [1, 2], for more |
| details). |
| |
| - With respect to idling for service guarantees, if several |
| processes are competing for the device at the same time, but |
| all processes (and groups, after the following commit) have |
| the same weight, then BFQ guarantees the expected throughput |
| distribution without ever idling the device. Throughput is |
| thus as high as possible in this common scenario. |
| |
| - If low-latency mode is enabled (default configuration), BFQ |
| executes some special heuristics to detect interactive and soft |
| real-time applications (e.g., video or audio players/streamers), |
| and to reduce their latency. The most important action taken to |
| achieve this goal is to give to the queues associated with these |
| applications more than their fair share of the device |
| throughput. For brevity, we call just "weight-raising" the whole |
| sets of actions taken by BFQ to privilege these queues. In |
| particular, BFQ provides a milder form of weight-raising for |
| interactive applications, and a stronger form for soft real-time |
| applications. |
| |
| - BFQ automatically deactivates idling for queues born in a burst of |
| queue creations. In fact, these queues are usually associated with |
| the processes of applications and services that benefit mostly |
| from a high throughput. Examples are systemd during boot, or git |
| grep. |
| |
| - As CFQ, BFQ merges queues performing interleaved I/O, i.e., |
| performing random I/O that becomes mostly sequential if |
| merged. Differently from CFQ, BFQ achieves this goal with a more |
| reactive mechanism, called Early Queue Merge (EQM). EQM is so |
| responsive in detecting interleaved I/O (cooperating processes), |
| that it enables BFQ to achieve a high throughput, by queue |
| merging, even for queues for which CFQ needs a different |
| mechanism, preemption, to get a high throughput. As such EQM is a |
| unified mechanism to achieve a high throughput with interleaved |
| I/O. |
| |
| - Queues are scheduled according to a variant of WF2Q+, named |
| B-WF2Q+, and implemented using an augmented rb-tree to preserve an |
| O(log N) overall complexity. See [2] for more details. B-WF2Q+ is |
| also ready for hierarchical scheduling. However, for a cleaner |
| logical breakdown, the code that enables and completes |
| hierarchical support is provided in the next commit, which focuses |
| exactly on this feature. |
| |
| - B-WF2Q+ guarantees a tight deviation with respect to an ideal, |
| perfectly fair, and smooth service. In particular, B-WF2Q+ |
| guarantees that each queue receives a fraction of the device |
| throughput proportional to its weight, even if the throughput |
| fluctuates, and regardless of: the device parameters, the current |
| workload and the budgets assigned to the queue. |
| |
| - The last, budget-independence, property (although probably |
| counterintuitive in the first place) is definitely beneficial, for |
| the following reasons: |
| |
| - First, with any proportional-share scheduler, the maximum |
| deviation with respect to an ideal service is proportional to |
| the maximum budget (slice) assigned to queues. As a consequence, |
| BFQ can keep this deviation tight not only because of the |
| accurate service of B-WF2Q+, but also because BFQ *does not* |
| need to assign a larger budget to a queue to let the queue |
| receive a higher fraction of the device throughput. |
| |
| - Second, BFQ is free to choose, for every process (queue), the |
| budget that best fits the needs of the process, or best |
| leverages the I/O pattern of the process. In particular, BFQ |
| updates queue budgets with a simple feedback-loop algorithm that |
| allows a high throughput to be achieved, while still providing |
| tight latency guarantees to time-sensitive applications. When |
| the in-service queue expires, this algorithm computes the next |
| budget of the queue so as to: |
| |
| - Let large budgets be eventually assigned to the queues |
| associated with I/O-bound applications performing sequential |
| I/O: in fact, the longer these applications are served once |
| got access to the device, the higher the throughput is. |
| |
| - Let small budgets be eventually assigned to the queues |
| associated with time-sensitive applications (which typically |
| perform sporadic and short I/O), because, the smaller the |
| budget assigned to a queue waiting for service is, the sooner |
| B-WF2Q+ will serve that queue (Subsec 3.3 in [2]). |
| |
| - If several processes are competing for the device at the same time, |
| but all processes and groups have the same weight, then BFQ |
| guarantees the expected throughput distribution without ever idling |
| the device. It uses preemption instead. Throughput is then much |
| higher in this common scenario. |
| |
| - ioprio classes are served in strict priority order, i.e., |
| lower-priority queues are not served as long as there are |
| higher-priority queues. Among queues in the same class, the |
| bandwidth is distributed in proportion to the weight of each |
| queue. A very thin extra bandwidth is however guaranteed to |
| the Idle class, to prevent it from starving. |
| |
| |
| 3. What are BFQ's tunable? |
| ========================== |
| |
| The tunables back_seek-max, back_seek_penalty, fifo_expire_async and |
| fifo_expire_sync below are the same as in CFQ. Their description is |
| just copied from that for CFQ. Some considerations in the description |
| of slice_idle are copied from CFQ too. |
| |
| per-process ioprio and weight |
| ----------------------------- |
| |
| Unless the cgroups interface is used (see "4. BFQ group scheduling"), |
| weights can be assigned to processes only indirectly, through I/O |
| priorities, and according to the relation: |
| weight = (IOPRIO_BE_NR - ioprio) * 10. |
| |
| Beware that, if low-latency is set, then BFQ automatically raises the |
| weight of the queues associated with interactive and soft real-time |
| applications. Unset this tunable if you need/want to control weights. |
| |
| slice_idle |
| ---------- |
| |
| This parameter specifies how long BFQ should idle for next I/O |
| request, when certain sync BFQ queues become empty. By default |
| slice_idle is a non-zero value. Idling has a double purpose: boosting |
| throughput and making sure that the desired throughput distribution is |
| respected (see the description of how BFQ works, and, if needed, the |
| papers referred there). |
| |
| As for throughput, idling can be very helpful on highly seeky media |
| like single spindle SATA/SAS disks where we can cut down on overall |
| number of seeks and see improved throughput. |
| |
| Setting slice_idle to 0 will remove all the idling on queues and one |
| should see an overall improved throughput on faster storage devices |
| like multiple SATA/SAS disks in hardware RAID configuration. |
| |
| So depending on storage and workload, it might be useful to set |
| slice_idle=0. In general for SATA/SAS disks and software RAID of |
| SATA/SAS disks keeping slice_idle enabled should be useful. For any |
| configurations where there are multiple spindles behind single LUN |
| (Host based hardware RAID controller or for storage arrays), setting |
| slice_idle=0 might end up in better throughput and acceptable |
| latencies. |
| |
| Idling is however necessary to have service guarantees enforced in |
| case of differentiated weights or differentiated I/O-request lengths. |
| To see why, suppose that a given BFQ queue A must get several I/O |
| requests served for each request served for another queue B. Idling |
| ensures that, if A makes a new I/O request slightly after becoming |
| empty, then no request of B is dispatched in the middle, and thus A |
| does not lose the possibility to get more than one request dispatched |
| before the next request of B is dispatched. Note that idling |
| guarantees the desired differentiated treatment of queues only in |
| terms of I/O-request dispatches. To guarantee that the actual service |
| order then corresponds to the dispatch order, the strict_guarantees |
| tunable must be set too. |
| |
| There is an important flipside for idling: apart from the above cases |
| where it is beneficial also for throughput, idling can severely impact |
| throughput. One important case is random workload. Because of this |
| issue, BFQ tends to avoid idling as much as possible, when it is not |
| beneficial also for throughput. As a consequence of this behavior, and |
| of further issues described for the strict_guarantees tunable, |
| short-term service guarantees may be occasionally violated. And, in |
| some cases, these guarantees may be more important than guaranteeing |
| maximum throughput. For example, in video playing/streaming, a very |
| low drop rate may be more important than maximum throughput. In these |
| cases, consider setting the strict_guarantees parameter. |
| |
| strict_guarantees |
| ----------------- |
| |
| If this parameter is set (default: unset), then BFQ |
| |
| - always performs idling when the in-service queue becomes empty; |
| |
| - forces the device to serve one I/O request at a time, by dispatching a |
| new request only if there is no outstanding request. |
| |
| In the presence of differentiated weights or I/O-request sizes, both |
| the above conditions are needed to guarantee that every BFQ queue |
| receives its allotted share of the bandwidth. The first condition is |
| needed for the reasons explained in the description of the slice_idle |
| tunable. The second condition is needed because all modern storage |
| devices reorder internally-queued requests, which may trivially break |
| the service guarantees enforced by the I/O scheduler. |
| |
| Setting strict_guarantees may evidently affect throughput. |
| |
| back_seek_max |
| ------------- |
| |
| This specifies, given in Kbytes, the maximum "distance" for backward seeking. |
| The distance is the amount of space from the current head location to the |
| sectors that are backward in terms of distance. |
| |
| This parameter allows the scheduler to anticipate requests in the "backward" |
| direction and consider them as being the "next" if they are within this |
| distance from the current head location. |
| |
| back_seek_penalty |
| ----------------- |
| |
| This parameter is used to compute the cost of backward seeking. If the |
| backward distance of request is just 1/back_seek_penalty from a "front" |
| request, then the seeking cost of two requests is considered equivalent. |
| |
| So scheduler will not bias toward one or the other request (otherwise scheduler |
| will bias toward front request). Default value of back_seek_penalty is 2. |
| |
| fifo_expire_async |
| ----------------- |
| |
| This parameter is used to set the timeout of asynchronous requests. Default |
| value of this is 248ms. |
| |
| fifo_expire_sync |
| ---------------- |
| |
| This parameter is used to set the timeout of synchronous requests. Default |
| value of this is 124ms. In case to favor synchronous requests over asynchronous |
| one, this value should be decreased relative to fifo_expire_async. |
| |
| low_latency |
| ----------- |
| |
| This parameter is used to enable/disable BFQ's low latency mode. By |
| default, low latency mode is enabled. If enabled, interactive and soft |
| real-time applications are privileged and experience a lower latency, |
| as explained in more detail in the description of how BFQ works. |
| |
| DISABLE this mode if you need full control on bandwidth |
| distribution. In fact, if it is enabled, then BFQ automatically |
| increases the bandwidth share of privileged applications, as the main |
| means to guarantee a lower latency to them. |
| |
| In addition, as already highlighted at the beginning of this document, |
| DISABLE this mode if your only goal is to achieve a high throughput. |
| In fact, privileging the I/O of some application over the rest may |
| entail a lower throughput. To achieve the highest-possible throughput |
| on a non-rotational device, setting slice_idle to 0 may be needed too |
| (at the cost of giving up any strong guarantee on fairness and low |
| latency). |
| |
| timeout_sync |
| ------------ |
| |
| Maximum amount of device time that can be given to a task (queue) once |
| it has been selected for service. On devices with costly seeks, |
| increasing this time usually increases maximum throughput. On the |
| opposite end, increasing this time coarsens the granularity of the |
| short-term bandwidth and latency guarantees, especially if the |
| following parameter is set to zero. |
| |
| max_budget |
| ---------- |
| |
| Maximum amount of service, measured in sectors, that can be provided |
| to a BFQ queue once it is set in service (of course within the limits |
| of the above timeout). According to what said in the description of |
| the algorithm, larger values increase the throughput in proportion to |
| the percentage of sequential I/O requests issued. The price of larger |
| values is that they coarsen the granularity of short-term bandwidth |
| and latency guarantees. |
| |
| The default value is 0, which enables auto-tuning: BFQ sets max_budget |
| to the maximum number of sectors that can be served during |
| timeout_sync, according to the estimated peak rate. |
| |
| weights |
| ------- |
| |
| Read-only parameter, used to show the weights of the currently active |
| BFQ queues. |
| |
| |
| wr_ tunables |
| ------------ |
| |
| BFQ exports a few parameters to control/tune the behavior of |
| low-latency heuristics. |
| |
| wr_coeff |
| |
| Factor by which the weight of a weight-raised queue is multiplied. If |
| the queue is deemed soft real-time, then the weight is further |
| multiplied by an additional, constant factor. |
| |
| wr_max_time |
| |
| Maximum duration of a weight-raising period for an interactive task |
| (ms). If set to zero (default value), then this value is computed |
| automatically, as a function of the peak rate of the device. In any |
| case, when the value of this parameter is read, it always reports the |
| current duration, regardless of whether it has been set manually or |
| computed automatically. |
| |
| wr_max_softrt_rate |
| |
| Maximum service rate below which a queue is deemed to be associated |
| with a soft real-time application, and is then weight-raised |
| accordingly (sectors/sec). |
| |
| wr_min_idle_time |
| |
| Minimum idle period after which interactive weight-raising may be |
| reactivated for a queue (in ms). |
| |
| wr_rt_max_time |
| |
| Maximum weight-raising duration for soft real-time queues (in ms). The |
| start time from which this duration is considered is automatically |
| moved forward if the queue is detected to be still soft real-time |
| before the current soft real-time weight-raising period finishes. |
| |
| wr_min_inter_arr_async |
| |
| Minimum period between I/O request arrivals after which weight-raising |
| may be reactivated for an already busy async queue (in ms). |
| |
| |
| 4. Group scheduling with BFQ |
| ============================ |
| |
| BFQ supports both cgroups-v1 and cgroups-v2 io controllers, namely |
| blkio and io. In particular, BFQ supports weight-based proportional |
| share. To activate cgroups support, set BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED. |
| |
| 4-1 Service guarantees provided |
| ------------------------------- |
| |
| With BFQ, proportional share means true proportional share of the |
| device bandwidth, according to group weights. For example, a group |
| with weight 200 gets twice the bandwidth, and not just twice the time, |
| of a group with weight 100. |
| |
| BFQ supports hierarchies (group trees) of any depth. Bandwidth is |
| distributed among groups and processes in the expected way: for each |
| group, the children of the group share the whole bandwidth of the |
| group in proportion to their weights. In particular, this implies |
| that, for each leaf group, every process of the group receives the |
| same share of the whole group bandwidth, unless the ioprio of the |
| process is modified. |
| |
| The resource-sharing guarantee for a group may partially or totally |
| switch from bandwidth to time, if providing bandwidth guarantees to |
| the group lowers the throughput too much. This switch occurs on a |
| per-process basis: if a process of a leaf group causes throughput loss |
| if served in such a way to receive its share of the bandwidth, then |
| BFQ switches back to just time-based proportional share for that |
| process. |
| |
| 4-2 Interface |
| ------------- |
| |
| To get proportional sharing of bandwidth with BFQ for a given device, |
| BFQ must of course be the active scheduler for that device. |
| |
| Within each group directory, the names of the files associated with |
| BFQ-specific cgroup parameters and stats begin with the "bfq." |
| prefix. So, with cgroups-v1 or cgroups-v2, the full prefix for |
| BFQ-specific files is "blkio.bfq." or "io.bfq." For example, the group |
| parameter to set the weight of a group with BFQ is blkio.bfq.weight |
| or io.bfq.weight. |
| |
| Parameters to set |
| ----------------- |
| |
| For each group, there is only the following parameter to set. |
| |
| weight (namely blkio.bfq.weight or io.bfq-weight): the weight of the |
| group inside its parent. Available values: 1..10000 (default 100). The |
| linear mapping between ioprio and weights, described at the beginning |
| of the tunable section, is still valid, but all weights higher than |
| IOPRIO_BE_NR*10 are mapped to ioprio 0. |
| |
| Recall that, if low-latency is set, then BFQ automatically raises the |
| weight of the queues associated with interactive and soft real-time |
| applications. Unset this tunable if you need/want to control weights. |
| |
| |
| [1] P. Valente, A. Avanzini, "Evolution of the BFQ Storage I/O |
| Scheduler", Proceedings of the First Workshop on Mobile System |
| Technologies (MST-2015), May 2015. |
| http://algogroup.unimore.it/people/paolo/disk_sched/mst-2015.pdf |
| |
| [2] P. Valente and M. Andreolini, "Improving Application |
| Responsiveness with the BFQ Disk I/O Scheduler", Proceedings of |
| the 5th Annual International Systems and Storage Conference |
| (SYSTOR '12), June 2012. |
| Slightly extended version: |
| http://algogroup.unimore.it/people/paolo/disk_sched/bfq-v1-suite- |
| results.pdf |