linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 5 Oct 2016 09:12:18 -0400
From:   Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:     Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...more.it>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Kernel-team@...com,
        jmoyer@...hat.com, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:37:00PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:

[..]
> Anyway, to avoid going on with trying speculations and arguments, let
> me retry with a practical proposal.  BFQ is out there, free.  Let's
> just test, measure and check whether we have already a solution to
> the problems you/we are still trying to solve in Linux.

Hi Paolo,

Does BFQ implementaiton scale for fast storage devices using blk-mq
interface. We will want to make sure that locking and other overhead of
BFQ is very minimal so that overall throughput does not suffer.

Vivek