| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:51:01 +0300 From: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com> To: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...more.it> CC: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RESEND][RFC] BFQ I/O Scheduler Paolo Valente wrote: > Avi Kivity ha scritto: >> Jumping in at random, does "process" here mean task or mms_struct? >> If the former, doesn't that mean that a 100-thread process can starve >> out a single-threaded process? >> >> Perhaps we need hierarchical io scheduling, like cfs has for the cpu. >> > Hierarchical would simplify isolating groups of threads or processes. > However, some simple solution is already available with bfq. For > example, if you have to fairly share the disk bandwidth between the > above 100 threads and another important thread, you get it by just > assigning weight 1 to each of these 100 threads, and weight 100 to the > important one. Doesn't work. If the 100-thread process wants to use just on thread for issuing I/O, it will be starved by the single-threaded process. [my example has process A with 100 threads, and process B with 1 thread, not a 101-thread process with one important thread] -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists