linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] dm-ioband: I/O bandwidth controller v0.0.4: Document

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:06:27 +0900 (JST)
From:	Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>
To:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, agk@...rceware.org,
	sergk@...gk.org.ua
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dm-ioband: I/O bandwidth controller v0.0.4:
 Document

Hi,

> Most writes are performed by pdflush, kswapd, etc.  This will lead to large
> inaccuracy.
>
> It isn't trivial to fix.  We'd need deep, long tracking of ownership
> probably all the way up to the pagecache page.  The same infrastructure
> would be needed to make Sergey's "BSD acct: disk I/O accounting" vaguely
> accurate.  Other proposals need it, but I forget what they are.

I also realize that some kernel threads such as pdflush perform actual
writes instead of tasks which originally issued write requests.
So, taka is developing a blocking I/O tacking down mechanism which is
based on cgroup memory controller and posted it to LKML:
http://lwn.net/Articles/273802/

However, the current implementation works well with Xen virtual
machines, because virtual machine's I/Os are issued from its own kernel
thread and can be tracked down. Please see a benchmark result of Xen
virtual machine:
http://people.valinux.co.jp/~ryov/dm-ioband/benchmark/xen-blktap.html

As for KVM, dm-ioband was also able to track down block I/Os as I
expected. When dm-ioband is used in virtual machine environment,
I think even the current implementation will work fairly.

But unfortunately I found KVM still had a performance problem that
it couldn't handle I/Os efficiently yet, which should be improved.
I already posted this problem to kvm-devel list:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=20080229.210531.226799765.ryov%40valinux.co.jp&forum_name=kvm-devel

> Much more minor points: when merge-time comes, the patches should have the
> LINUX_VERSION_CODE stuff removed.  And probably all of the many `inline's
> should be removed.

Thank you for your advice. I'll have these fixes included in the next
release.

Ryo Tsuruta
--
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/