linux/Documentation/block/bfq-iosched.rst
<<
>>
Prefs
   1==========================
   2BFQ (Budget Fair Queueing)
   3==========================
   4
   5BFQ is a proportional-share I/O scheduler, with some extra
   6low-latency capabilities. In addition to cgroups support (blkio or io
   7controllers), BFQ's main features are:
   8
   9- BFQ guarantees a high system and application responsiveness, and a
  10  low latency for time-sensitive applications, such as audio or video
  11  players;
  12- BFQ distributes bandwidth, and not just time, among processes or
  13  groups (switching back to time distribution when needed to keep
  14  throughput high).
  15
  16In its default configuration, BFQ privileges latency over
  17throughput. So, when needed for achieving a lower latency, BFQ builds
  18schedules that may lead to a lower throughput. If your main or only
  19goal, for a given device, is to achieve the maximum-possible
  20throughput at all times, then do switch off all low-latency heuristics
  21for that device, by setting low_latency to 0. See Section 3 for
  22details on how to configure BFQ for the desired tradeoff between
  23latency and throughput, or on how to maximize throughput.
  24
  25As every I/O scheduler, BFQ adds some overhead to per-I/O-request
  26processing. To give an idea of this overhead, the total,
  27single-lock-protected, per-request processing time of BFQ---i.e., the
  28sum of the execution times of the request insertion, dispatch and
  29completion hooks---is, e.g., 1.9 us on an Intel Core i7-2760QM@2.40GHz
  30(dated CPU for notebooks; time measured with simple code
  31instrumentation, and using the throughput-sync.sh script of the S
  32suite [1], in performance-profiling mode). To put this result into
  33context, the total, single-lock-protected, per-request execution time
  34of the lightest I/O scheduler available in blk-mq, mq-deadline, is 0.7
  35us (mq-deadline is ~800 LOC, against ~10500 LOC for BFQ).
  36
  37Scheduling overhead further limits the maximum IOPS that a CPU can
  38process (already limited by the execution of the rest of the I/O
  39stack). To give an idea of the limits with BFQ, on slow or average
  40CPUs, here are, first, the limits of BFQ for three different CPUs, on,
  41respectively, an average laptop, an old desktop, and a cheap embedded
  42system, in case full hierarchical support is enabled (i.e.,
  43CONFIG_BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED is set), but CONFIG_BFQ_CGROUP_DEBUG is not
  44set (Section 4-2):
  45- Intel i7-4850HQ: 400 KIOPS
  46- AMD A8-3850: 250 KIOPS
  47- ARM CortexTM-A53 Octa-core: 80 KIOPS
  48
  49If CONFIG_BFQ_CGROUP_DEBUG is set (and of course full hierarchical
  50support is enabled), then the sustainable throughput with BFQ
  51decreases, because all blkio.bfq* statistics are created and updated
  52(Section 4-2). For BFQ, this leads to the following maximum
  53sustainable throughputs, on the same systems as above:
  54- Intel i7-4850HQ: 310 KIOPS
  55- AMD A8-3850: 200 KIOPS
  56- ARM CortexTM-A53 Octa-core: 56 KIOPS
  57
  58BFQ works for multi-queue devices too.
  59
  60.. The table of contents follow. Impatients can just jump to Section 3.
  61
  62.. CONTENTS
  63
  64   1. When may BFQ be useful?
  65    1-1 Personal systems
  66    1-2 Server systems
  67   2. How does BFQ work?
  68   3. What are BFQ's tunables and how to properly configure BFQ?
  69   4. BFQ group scheduling
  70    4-1 Service guarantees provided
  71    4-2 Interface
  72
  731. When may BFQ be useful?
  74==========================
  75
  76BFQ provides the following benefits on personal and server systems.
  77
  781-1 Personal systems
  79--------------------
  80
  81Low latency for interactive applications
  82^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  83
  84Regardless of the actual background workload, BFQ guarantees that, for
  85interactive tasks, the storage device is virtually as responsive as if
  86it was idle. For example, even if one or more of the following
  87background workloads are being executed:
  88
  89- one or more large files are being read, written or copied,
  90- a tree of source files is being compiled,
  91- one or more virtual machines are performing I/O,
  92- a software update is in progress,
  93- indexing daemons are scanning filesystems and updating their
  94  databases,
  95
  96starting an application or loading a file from within an application
  97takes about the same time as if the storage device was idle. As a
  98comparison, with CFQ, NOOP or DEADLINE, and in the same conditions,
  99applications experience high latencies, or even become unresponsive
 100until the background workload terminates (also on SSDs).
 101
 102Low latency for soft real-time applications
 103^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 104Also soft real-time applications, such as audio and video
 105players/streamers, enjoy a low latency and a low drop rate, regardless
 106of the background I/O workload. As a consequence, these applications
 107do not suffer from almost any glitch due to the background workload.
 108
 109Higher speed for code-development tasks
 110^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 111
 112If some additional workload happens to be executed in parallel, then
 113BFQ executes the I/O-related components of typical code-development
 114tasks (compilation, checkout, merge, ...) much more quickly than CFQ,
 115NOOP or DEADLINE.
 116
 117High throughput
 118^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 119
 120On hard disks, BFQ achieves up to 30% higher throughput than CFQ, and
 121up to 150% higher throughput than DEADLINE and NOOP, with all the
 122sequential workloads considered in our tests. With random workloads,
 123and with all the workloads on flash-based devices, BFQ achieves,
 124instead, about the same throughput as the other schedulers.
 125
 126Strong fairness, bandwidth and delay guarantees
 127^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 128
 129BFQ distributes the device throughput, and not just the device time,
 130among I/O-bound applications in proportion their weights, with any
 131workload and regardless of the device parameters. From these bandwidth
 132guarantees, it is possible to compute tight per-I/O-request delay
 133guarantees by a simple formula. If not configured for strict service
 134guarantees, BFQ switches to time-based resource sharing (only) for
 135applications that would otherwise cause a throughput loss.
 136
 1371-2 Server systems
 138------------------
 139
 140Most benefits for server systems follow from the same service
 141properties as above. In particular, regardless of whether additional,
 142possibly heavy workloads are being served, BFQ guarantees:
 143
 144* audio and video-streaming with zero or very low jitter and drop
 145  rate;
 146
 147* fast retrieval of WEB pages and embedded objects;
 148
 149* real-time recording of data in live-dumping applications (e.g.,
 150  packet logging);
 151
 152* responsiveness in local and remote access to a server.
 153
 154
 1552. How does BFQ work?
 156=====================
 157
 158BFQ is a proportional-share I/O scheduler, whose general structure,
 159plus a lot of code, are borrowed from CFQ.
 160
 161- Each process doing I/O on a device is associated with a weight and a
 162  `(bfq_)queue`.
 163
 164- BFQ grants exclusive access to the device, for a while, to one queue
 165  (process) at a time, and implements this service model by
 166  associating every queue with a budget, measured in number of
 167  sectors.
 168
 169  - After a queue is granted access to the device, the budget of the
 170    queue is decremented, on each request dispatch, by the size of the
 171    request.
 172
 173  - The in-service queue is expired, i.e., its service is suspended,
 174    only if one of the following events occurs: 1) the queue finishes
 175    its budget, 2) the queue empties, 3) a "budget timeout" fires.
 176
 177    - The budget timeout prevents processes doing random I/O from
 178      holding the device for too long and dramatically reducing
 179      throughput.
 180
 181    - Actually, as in CFQ, a queue associated with a process issuing
 182      sync requests may not be expired immediately when it empties. In
 183      contrast, BFQ may idle the device for a short time interval,
 184      giving the process the chance to go on being served if it issues
 185      a new request in time. Device idling typically boosts the
 186      throughput on rotational devices and on non-queueing flash-based
 187      devices, if processes do synchronous and sequential I/O. In
 188      addition, under BFQ, device idling is also instrumental in
 189      guaranteeing the desired throughput fraction to processes
 190      issuing sync requests (see the description of the slice_idle
 191      tunable in this document, or [1, 2], for more details).
 192
 193      - With respect to idling for service guarantees, if several
 194        processes are competing for the device at the same time, but
 195        all processes and groups have the same weight, then BFQ
 196        guarantees the expected throughput distribution without ever
 197        idling the device. Throughput is thus as high as possible in
 198        this common scenario.
 199
 200     - On flash-based storage with internal queueing of commands
 201       (typically NCQ), device idling happens to be always detrimental
 202       for throughput. So, with these devices, BFQ performs idling
 203       only when strictly needed for service guarantees, i.e., for
 204       guaranteeing low latency or fairness. In these cases, overall
 205       throughput may be sub-optimal. No solution currently exists to
 206       provide both strong service guarantees and optimal throughput
 207       on devices with internal queueing.
 208
 209  - If low-latency mode is enabled (default configuration), BFQ
 210    executes some special heuristics to detect interactive and soft
 211    real-time applications (e.g., video or audio players/streamers),
 212    and to reduce their latency. The most important action taken to
 213    achieve this goal is to give to the queues associated with these
 214    applications more than their fair share of the device
 215    throughput. For brevity, we call just "weight-raising" the whole
 216    sets of actions taken by BFQ to privilege these queues. In
 217    particular, BFQ provides a milder form of weight-raising for
 218    interactive applications, and a stronger form for soft real-time
 219    applications.
 220
 221  - BFQ automatically deactivates idling for queues born in a burst of
 222    queue creations. In fact, these queues are usually associated with
 223    the processes of applications and services that benefit mostly
 224    from a high throughput. Examples are systemd during boot, or git
 225    grep.
 226
 227  - As CFQ, BFQ merges queues performing interleaved I/O, i.e.,
 228    performing random I/O that becomes mostly sequential if
 229    merged. Differently from CFQ, BFQ achieves this goal with a more
 230    reactive mechanism, called Early Queue Merge (EQM). EQM is so
 231    responsive in detecting interleaved I/O (cooperating processes),
 232    that it enables BFQ to achieve a high throughput, by queue
 233    merging, even for queues for which CFQ needs a different
 234    mechanism, preemption, to get a high throughput. As such EQM is a
 235    unified mechanism to achieve a high throughput with interleaved
 236    I/O.
 237
 238  - Queues are scheduled according to a variant of WF2Q+, named
 239    B-WF2Q+, and implemented using an augmented rb-tree to preserve an
 240    O(log N) overall complexity.  See [2] for more details. B-WF2Q+ is
 241    also ready for hierarchical scheduling, details in Section 4.
 242
 243  - B-WF2Q+ guarantees a tight deviation with respect to an ideal,
 244    perfectly fair, and smooth service. In particular, B-WF2Q+
 245    guarantees that each queue receives a fraction of the device
 246    throughput proportional to its weight, even if the throughput
 247    fluctuates, and regardless of: the device parameters, the current
 248    workload and the budgets assigned to the queue.
 249
 250  - The last, budget-independence, property (although probably
 251    counterintuitive in the first place) is definitely beneficial, for
 252    the following reasons:
 253
 254    - First, with any proportional-share scheduler, the maximum
 255      deviation with respect to an ideal service is proportional to
 256      the maximum budget (slice) assigned to queues. As a consequence,
 257      BFQ can keep this deviation tight not only because of the
 258      accurate service of B-WF2Q+, but also because BFQ *does not*
 259      need to assign a larger budget to a queue to let the queue
 260      receive a higher fraction of the device throughput.
 261
 262    - Second, BFQ is free to choose, for every process (queue), the
 263      budget that best fits the needs of the process, or best
 264      leverages the I/O pattern of the process. In particular, BFQ
 265      updates queue budgets with a simple feedback-loop algorithm that
 266      allows a high throughput to be achieved, while still providing
 267      tight latency guarantees to time-sensitive applications. When
 268      the in-service queue expires, this algorithm computes the next
 269      budget of the queue so as to:
 270
 271      - Let large budgets be eventually assigned to the queues
 272        associated with I/O-bound applications performing sequential
 273        I/O: in fact, the longer these applications are served once
 274        got access to the device, the higher the throughput is.
 275
 276      - Let small budgets be eventually assigned to the queues
 277        associated with time-sensitive applications (which typically
 278        perform sporadic and short I/O), because, the smaller the
 279        budget assigned to a queue waiting for service is, the sooner
 280        B-WF2Q+ will serve that queue (Subsec 3.3 in [2]).
 281
 282- If several processes are competing for the device at the same time,
 283  but all processes and groups have the same weight, then BFQ
 284  guarantees the expected throughput distribution without ever idling
 285  the device. It uses preemption instead. Throughput is then much
 286  higher in this common scenario.
 287
 288- ioprio classes are served in strict priority order, i.e.,
 289  lower-priority queues are not served as long as there are
 290  higher-priority queues.  Among queues in the same class, the
 291  bandwidth is distributed in proportion to the weight of each
 292  queue. A very thin extra bandwidth is however guaranteed to
 293  the Idle class, to prevent it from starving.
 294
 295
 2963. What are BFQ's tunables and how to properly configure BFQ?
 297=============================================================
 298
 299Most BFQ tunables affect service guarantees (basically latency and
 300fairness) and throughput. For full details on how to choose the
 301desired tradeoff between service guarantees and throughput, see the
 302parameters slice_idle, strict_guarantees and low_latency. For details
 303on how to maximise throughput, see slice_idle, timeout_sync and
 304max_budget. The other performance-related parameters have been
 305inherited from, and have been preserved mostly for compatibility with
 306CFQ. So far, no performance improvement has been reported after
 307changing the latter parameters in BFQ.
 308
 309In particular, the tunables back_seek-max, back_seek_penalty,
 310fifo_expire_async and fifo_expire_sync below are the same as in
 311CFQ. Their description is just copied from that for CFQ. Some
 312considerations in the description of slice_idle are copied from CFQ
 313too.
 314
 315per-process ioprio and weight
 316-----------------------------
 317
 318Unless the cgroups interface is used (see "4. BFQ group scheduling"),
 319weights can be assigned to processes only indirectly, through I/O
 320priorities, and according to the relation:
 321weight = (IOPRIO_BE_NR - ioprio) * 10.
 322
 323Beware that, if low-latency is set, then BFQ automatically raises the
 324weight of the queues associated with interactive and soft real-time
 325applications. Unset this tunable if you need/want to control weights.
 326
 327slice_idle
 328----------
 329
 330This parameter specifies how long BFQ should idle for next I/O
 331request, when certain sync BFQ queues become empty. By default
 332slice_idle is a non-zero value. Idling has a double purpose: boosting
 333throughput and making sure that the desired throughput distribution is
 334respected (see the description of how BFQ works, and, if needed, the
 335papers referred there).
 336
 337As for throughput, idling can be very helpful on highly seeky media
 338like single spindle SATA/SAS disks where we can cut down on overall
 339number of seeks and see improved throughput.
 340
 341Setting slice_idle to 0 will remove all the idling on queues and one
 342should see an overall improved throughput on faster storage devices
 343like multiple SATA/SAS disks in hardware RAID configuration, as well
 344as flash-based storage with internal command queueing (and
 345parallelism).
 346
 347So depending on storage and workload, it might be useful to set
 348slice_idle=0.  In general for SATA/SAS disks and software RAID of
 349SATA/SAS disks keeping slice_idle enabled should be useful. For any
 350configurations where there are multiple spindles behind single LUN
 351(Host based hardware RAID controller or for storage arrays), or with
 352flash-based fast storage, setting slice_idle=0 might end up in better
 353throughput and acceptable latencies.
 354
 355Idling is however necessary to have service guarantees enforced in
 356case of differentiated weights or differentiated I/O-request lengths.
 357To see why, suppose that a given BFQ queue A must get several I/O
 358requests served for each request served for another queue B. Idling
 359ensures that, if A makes a new I/O request slightly after becoming
 360empty, then no request of B is dispatched in the middle, and thus A
 361does not lose the possibility to get more than one request dispatched
 362before the next request of B is dispatched. Note that idling
 363guarantees the desired differentiated treatment of queues only in
 364terms of I/O-request dispatches. To guarantee that the actual service
 365order then corresponds to the dispatch order, the strict_guarantees
 366tunable must be set too.
 367
 368There is an important flipside for idling: apart from the above cases
 369where it is beneficial also for throughput, idling can severely impact
 370throughput. One important case is random workload. Because of this
 371issue, BFQ tends to avoid idling as much as possible, when it is not
 372beneficial also for throughput (as detailed in Section 2). As a
 373consequence of this behavior, and of further issues described for the
 374strict_guarantees tunable, short-term service guarantees may be
 375occasionally violated. And, in some cases, these guarantees may be
 376more important than guaranteeing maximum throughput. For example, in
 377video playing/streaming, a very low drop rate may be more important
 378than maximum throughput. In these cases, consider setting the
 379strict_guarantees parameter.
 380
 381slice_idle_us
 382-------------
 383
 384Controls the same tuning parameter as slice_idle, but in microseconds.
 385Either tunable can be used to set idling behavior.  Afterwards, the
 386other tunable will reflect the newly set value in sysfs.
 387
 388strict_guarantees
 389-----------------
 390
 391If this parameter is set (default: unset), then BFQ
 392
 393- always performs idling when the in-service queue becomes empty;
 394
 395- forces the device to serve one I/O request at a time, by dispatching a
 396  new request only if there is no outstanding request.
 397
 398In the presence of differentiated weights or I/O-request sizes, both
 399the above conditions are needed to guarantee that every BFQ queue
 400receives its allotted share of the bandwidth. The first condition is
 401needed for the reasons explained in the description of the slice_idle
 402tunable.  The second condition is needed because all modern storage
 403devices reorder internally-queued requests, which may trivially break
 404the service guarantees enforced by the I/O scheduler.
 405
 406Setting strict_guarantees may evidently affect throughput.
 407
 408back_seek_max
 409-------------
 410
 411This specifies, given in Kbytes, the maximum "distance" for backward seeking.
 412The distance is the amount of space from the current head location to the
 413sectors that are backward in terms of distance.
 414
 415This parameter allows the scheduler to anticipate requests in the "backward"
 416direction and consider them as being the "next" if they are within this
 417distance from the current head location.
 418
 419back_seek_penalty
 420-----------------
 421
 422This parameter is used to compute the cost of backward seeking. If the
 423backward distance of request is just 1/back_seek_penalty from a "front"
 424request, then the seeking cost of two requests is considered equivalent.
 425
 426So scheduler will not bias toward one or the other request (otherwise scheduler
 427will bias toward front request). Default value of back_seek_penalty is 2.
 428
 429fifo_expire_async
 430-----------------
 431
 432This parameter is used to set the timeout of asynchronous requests. Default
 433value of this is 250ms.
 434
 435fifo_expire_sync
 436----------------
 437
 438This parameter is used to set the timeout of synchronous requests. Default
 439value of this is 125ms. In case to favor synchronous requests over asynchronous
 440one, this value should be decreased relative to fifo_expire_async.
 441
 442low_latency
 443-----------
 444
 445This parameter is used to enable/disable BFQ's low latency mode. By
 446default, low latency mode is enabled. If enabled, interactive and soft
 447real-time applications are privileged and experience a lower latency,
 448as explained in more detail in the description of how BFQ works.
 449
 450DISABLE this mode if you need full control on bandwidth
 451distribution. In fact, if it is enabled, then BFQ automatically
 452increases the bandwidth share of privileged applications, as the main
 453means to guarantee a lower latency to them.
 454
 455In addition, as already highlighted at the beginning of this document,
 456DISABLE this mode if your only goal is to achieve a high throughput.
 457In fact, privileging the I/O of some application over the rest may
 458entail a lower throughput. To achieve the highest-possible throughput
 459on a non-rotational device, setting slice_idle to 0 may be needed too
 460(at the cost of giving up any strong guarantee on fairness and low
 461latency).
 462
 463timeout_sync
 464------------
 465
 466Maximum amount of device time that can be given to a task (queue) once
 467it has been selected for service. On devices with costly seeks,
 468increasing this time usually increases maximum throughput. On the
 469opposite end, increasing this time coarsens the granularity of the
 470short-term bandwidth and latency guarantees, especially if the
 471following parameter is set to zero.
 472
 473max_budget
 474----------
 475
 476Maximum amount of service, measured in sectors, that can be provided
 477to a BFQ queue once it is set in service (of course within the limits
 478of the above timeout). According to what said in the description of
 479the algorithm, larger values increase the throughput in proportion to
 480the percentage of sequential I/O requests issued. The price of larger
 481values is that they coarsen the granularity of short-term bandwidth
 482and latency guarantees.
 483
 484The default value is 0, which enables auto-tuning: BFQ sets max_budget
 485to the maximum number of sectors that can be served during
 486timeout_sync, according to the estimated peak rate.
 487
 488For specific devices, some users have occasionally reported to have
 489reached a higher throughput by setting max_budget explicitly, i.e., by
 490setting max_budget to a higher value than 0. In particular, they have
 491set max_budget to higher values than those to which BFQ would have set
 492it with auto-tuning. An alternative way to achieve this goal is to
 493just increase the value of timeout_sync, leaving max_budget equal to 0.
 494
 4954. Group scheduling with BFQ
 496============================
 497
 498BFQ supports both cgroups-v1 and cgroups-v2 io controllers, namely
 499blkio and io. In particular, BFQ supports weight-based proportional
 500share. To activate cgroups support, set BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED.
 501
 5024-1 Service guarantees provided
 503-------------------------------
 504
 505With BFQ, proportional share means true proportional share of the
 506device bandwidth, according to group weights. For example, a group
 507with weight 200 gets twice the bandwidth, and not just twice the time,
 508of a group with weight 100.
 509
 510BFQ supports hierarchies (group trees) of any depth. Bandwidth is
 511distributed among groups and processes in the expected way: for each
 512group, the children of the group share the whole bandwidth of the
 513group in proportion to their weights. In particular, this implies
 514that, for each leaf group, every process of the group receives the
 515same share of the whole group bandwidth, unless the ioprio of the
 516process is modified.
 517
 518The resource-sharing guarantee for a group may partially or totally
 519switch from bandwidth to time, if providing bandwidth guarantees to
 520the group lowers the throughput too much. This switch occurs on a
 521per-process basis: if a process of a leaf group causes throughput loss
 522if served in such a way to receive its share of the bandwidth, then
 523BFQ switches back to just time-based proportional share for that
 524process.
 525
 5264-2 Interface
 527-------------
 528
 529To get proportional sharing of bandwidth with BFQ for a given device,
 530BFQ must of course be the active scheduler for that device.
 531
 532Within each group directory, the names of the files associated with
 533BFQ-specific cgroup parameters and stats begin with the "bfq."
 534prefix. So, with cgroups-v1 or cgroups-v2, the full prefix for
 535BFQ-specific files is "blkio.bfq." or "io.bfq." For example, the group
 536parameter to set the weight of a group with BFQ is blkio.bfq.weight
 537or io.bfq.weight.
 538
 539As for cgroups-v1 (blkio controller), the exact set of stat files
 540created, and kept up-to-date by bfq, depends on whether
 541CONFIG_BFQ_CGROUP_DEBUG is set. If it is set, then bfq creates all
 542the stat files documented in
 543Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v1/blkio-controller.rst. If, instead,
 544CONFIG_BFQ_CGROUP_DEBUG is not set, then bfq creates only the files::
 545
 546  blkio.bfq.io_service_bytes
 547  blkio.bfq.io_service_bytes_recursive
 548  blkio.bfq.io_serviced
 549  blkio.bfq.io_serviced_recursive
 550
 551The value of CONFIG_BFQ_CGROUP_DEBUG greatly influences the maximum
 552throughput sustainable with bfq, because updating the blkio.bfq.*
 553stats is rather costly, especially for some of the stats enabled by
 554CONFIG_BFQ_CGROUP_DEBUG.
 555
 556Parameters
 557----------
 558
 559For each group, the following parameters can be set:
 560
 561  weight
 562        This specifies the default weight for the cgroup inside its parent.
 563        Available values: 1..1000 (default: 100).
 564
 565        For cgroup v1, it is set by writing the value to `blkio.bfq.weight`.
 566
 567        For cgroup v2, it is set by writing the value to `io.bfq.weight`.
 568        (with an optional prefix of `default` and a space).
 569
 570        The linear mapping between ioprio and weights, described at the beginning
 571        of the tunable section, is still valid, but all weights higher than
 572        IOPRIO_BE_NR*10 are mapped to ioprio 0.
 573
 574        Recall that, if low-latency is set, then BFQ automatically raises the
 575        weight of the queues associated with interactive and soft real-time
 576        applications. Unset this tunable if you need/want to control weights.
 577
 578  weight_device
 579        This specifies a per-device weight for the cgroup. The syntax is
 580        `minor:major weight`. A weight of `0` may be used to reset to the default
 581        weight.
 582
 583        For cgroup v1, it is set by writing the value to `blkio.bfq.weight_device`.
 584
 585        For cgroup v2, the file name is `io.bfq.weight`.
 586
 587
 588[1]
 589    P. Valente, A. Avanzini, "Evolution of the BFQ Storage I/O
 590    Scheduler", Proceedings of the First Workshop on Mobile System
 591    Technologies (MST-2015), May 2015.
 592
 593    http://algogroup.unimore.it/people/paolo/disk_sched/mst-2015.pdf
 594
 595[2]
 596    P. Valente and M. Andreolini, "Improving Application
 597    Responsiveness with the BFQ Disk I/O Scheduler", Proceedings of
 598    the 5th Annual International Systems and Storage Conference
 599    (SYSTOR '12), June 2012.
 600
 601    Slightly extended version:
 602
 603    http://algogroup.unimore.it/people/paolo/disk_sched/bfq-v1-suite-results.pdf
 604
 605[3]
 606   https://github.com/Algodev-github/S
 607