linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] cgroup: fsio throttle controller

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, 18 Jan 2019 12:11:49 +0100
From:   Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
To:     Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] cgroup: fsio throttle controller



> Il giorno 18 gen 2019, alle ore 12:10, Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com> ha scritto:
> 
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:04:17PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Il giorno 18 gen 2019, alle ore 11:31, Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com> ha scritto:
>>> 
>>> This is a redesign of my old cgroup-io-throttle controller:
>>> https://lwn.net/Articles/330531/
>>> 
>>> I'm resuming this old patch to point out a problem that I think is still
>>> not solved completely.
>>> 
>>> = Problem =
>>> 
>>> The io.max controller works really well at limiting synchronous I/O
>>> (READs), but a lot of I/O requests are initiated outside the context of
>>> the process that is ultimately responsible for its creation (e.g.,
>>> WRITEs).
>>> 
>>> Throttling at the block layer in some cases is too late and we may end
>>> up slowing down processes that are not responsible for the I/O that
>>> is being processed at that level.
>>> 
>>> = Proposed solution =
>>> 
>>> The main idea of this controller is to split I/O measurement and I/O
>>> throttling: I/O is measured at the block layer for READS, at page cache
>>> (dirty pages) for WRITEs, and processes are limited while they're
>>> generating I/O at the VFS level, based on the measured I/O.
>>> 
>> 
>> Hi Andrea,
>> what the about the case where two processes are dirtying the same
>> pages?  Which will be charged?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Paolo
> 
> Hi Paolo,
> 
> in this case only the first one will be charged for the I/O activity
> (the one that changes a page from clean to dirty). This is probably not
> totally fair in some cases, but I think it's a good compromise,

Absolutely, I just wanted to better understand this point.

> at the
> end rewriting the same page over and over while it's already dirty
> doesn't actually generate I/O activity, until the page is flushed back
> to disk.
> 

Right.

Thanks,
Paolo

> Obviously I'm open to other better ideas and suggestions.
> 
> Thanks!
> -Andrea