linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/4] io controller: Core IO controller implementation logic

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

Date:	Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:50:36 -0500
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	Hirokazu Takahashi <taka@...inux.co.jp>,
	Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>,
	Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>,
	Satoshi UCHIDA <s-uchida@...jp.nec.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, fernando@....ntt.co.jp,
	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, menage@...gle.com,
	ngupta@...gle.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] io controller: Core IO controller implementation
	logic

On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 12:21:45PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:30:25 -0500
> vgoyal@...hat.com wrote:
> 
> > 
> > o Core IO controller implementation
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
> > 
> 
> 2 comments after a quick look.
> 
>  - I don't recommend generic work queue. More stacked dependency between "work"
>    is not good. (I think disk-driver uses "work" for their jobs.)

Sorry, I did not get this. Are you recommending that don't create a new
work queue, instead use existing work queue (say kblockd) to submit the bios
here?

I will look into it. I was little worried about a kblockd being overworked
in case of too many logical devices enabling IO controller.

> 
>  - It seems this bio-cgroup can queue the bio to infinite. Then, a process can submit
>    io unitl cause OOM.
>    (IIUC, Dirty bit of the page is cleared at submitting I/O. 
>     Then dirty_ratio can't help us.)
>    please add "wait for congestion by sleeping" code in bio-cgroup.

Yes, you are right. I need to put some kind of control on max number of
bios I can queue on a cgroup and after crossing the limit, I should put
the submitting task to sleep. (Something like request descriptor kind of
flow control implememented by elevators).

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/