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:	Thu, 31 Mar 2016 22:09:56 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Holger Hoffstätte 
	<holger.hoffstaette@...glemail.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck


Hi,

Jens mentioned on Twitter I should post my experience here as well,
so here we go.

I've backported this series (incl. updates) to stable-4.4.x - not too
difficult, minus the NVM part which I don't need anyway - and have been
running it for the past few days without any problem whatsoever, with
GREAT success.

My use case is primarily larger amounts of stuff (transcoded movies,
finished downloads, built Gentoo packages) that gets copied from tmpfs
to SSD (or disk) and every time that happens, the system noticeably
strangles readers (desktop, interactive shell). It does not really matter
how I tune writeback via the write_expire/dirty_bytes knobs or the
scheduler (and yes, I understand how they work); lowering the writeback
limits helped a bit but the system is still overwhelmed. Jacking up
deadline's writes_starved to unreasonable levels helps a bit, but in turn
makes all writes suffer. Anything else - even tried BFQ for a while,
which has its own unrelated problems - didn't really help either.

With this patchset the buffered writeback in these situations is much
improved, and copying several GBs at once to a SATA-3 SSD (or even an
external USB-2 disk with measly 40 MB/s) doodles along in the background
like it always should have, and desktop work is not noticeably affected.

I guess the effect will be even more noticeable on slower block devices
(laptops, old SSDs or disks).

So: +1 would apply again!

cheers
Holger

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ