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, 8 Mar 2012 16:20:54 -0500
From:	Chris Mason <>
To:	"Ted Ts'o" <>
Cc:	Jeff Moyer <>,
	Boaz Harrosh <>,
	Zach Brown <>, Eric Sandeen <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Don't do page stablization if

On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 04:12:21PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 03:42:52PM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > 
> > So now we're back to figuring out how to tell how long I/O will take?
> > If writeback is issuing random access I/Os to spinning media, you can
> > bet it might be a while.  Today, you could lower nr_requests to some
> > obscenely small number to improve worst-case latency.  I thought there
> > was some talk about improving the intelligence of writeback in this
> > regard, but it's a tough problem, especially given that writeback isn't
> > the only cook in the kitchen.
> ... and it gets worse if there is any kind of I/O prioritization going
> on via ionice(), or (as was the case in our example) I/O cgroups were
> being used to provide proportional I/O rate controls.  I don't think
> it's realistic to assume the writeback code can predict how long I/O
> will take when it does a submission.

cgroups do make it much harder because it could be a simple IO priority
inversion.  The latencies are just going to be a fact of life for now
and the best choice is to skip the stable pages.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists