netdev - Re: [1/1] Block device throttling [Re: Distributed storage.]

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:	Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:27:59 -0700
From:	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [1/1] Block device throttling [Re: Distributed storage.]

On Tuesday 28 August 2007 02:35, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 02:57:37PM -0700, Daniel Phillips 
(phillips@...nq.net) wrote:
> > Say Evgeniy, something I was curious about but forgot to ask you
> > earlier...
> >
> > On Wednesday 08 August 2007 03:17, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > > ...All oerations are not atomic, since we do not care about
> > > precise number of bios, but a fact, that we are close or close
> > > enough to the limit.
> > > ... in bio->endio
> > > +			q->bio_queued--;
> >
> > In your proposed patch, what prevents the race:
> >
> > 			cpu1						cpu2
> >
> > 	read q->bio_queued
> > 									q->bio_queued--
> > 	write q->bio_queued - 1
> > 	Whoops! We leaked a throttle count.
>
> We do not care about one cpu being able to increase its counter
> higher than the limit, such inaccuracy (maximum bios in flight thus
> can be more than limit, difference is equal to the number of CPUs -
> 1) is a price for removing atomic operation. I thought I pointed it
> in the original description, but might forget, that if it will be an
> issue, that atomic operations can be introduced there. Any
> uber-precise measurements in the case when we are close to the edge
> will not give us any benefit at all, since were are already in the
> grey area.

This is not just inaccurate, it is suicide.  Keep leaking throttle 
counts and eventually all of them will be gone.  No more IO
on that block device!

> Another possibility is to create a queue/device pointer in the bio
> structure to hold original device and then in its backing dev
> structure add a callback to recalculate the limit, but it increases
> the size of the bio. Do we need this?

Different issue.  Yes, I think we need a nice simple approach like
that, and prove it is stable before worrying about the size cost.

Regards,

Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html