linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/10] mm: per device dirty threshold

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]

Message-Id: <E1HfCzN-0002dZ-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:38:45 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
CC:	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, miklos@...redi.hu, neilb@...e.de,
	dgc@....com, tomoki.sekiyama.qu@...achi.com, nikita@...sterfs.com,
	trond.myklebust@....uio.no, yingchao.zhou@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] mm: per device dirty threshold

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:52:04 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> 
> > Scale writeback cache per backing device, proportional to its writeout speed.
> > 
> > By decoupling the BDI dirty thresholds a number of problems we currently have
> > will go away, namely:
> > 
> >  - mutual interference starvation (for any number of BDIs);
> >  - deadlocks with stacked BDIs (loop, FUSE and local NFS mounts).
> > 
> > It might be that all dirty pages are for a single BDI while other BDIs are
> > idling. By giving each BDI a 'fair' share of the dirty limit, each one can have
> > dirty pages outstanding and make progress.
> > 
> > A global threshold also creates a deadlock for stacked BDIs; when A writes to
> > B, and A generates enough dirty pages to get throttled, B will never start
> > writeback until the dirty pages go away. Again, by giving each BDI its own
> > 'independent' dirty limit, this problem is avoided.
> > 
> > So the problem is to determine how to distribute the total dirty limit across
> > the BDIs fairly and efficiently. A DBI that has a large dirty limit but does
> > not have any dirty pages outstanding is a waste.
> > 
> > What is done is to keep a floating proportion between the DBIs based on
> > writeback completions. This way faster/more active devices get a larger share
> > than slower/idle devices.
> 
> This is a pretty major improvement to various nasty corner-cases, if it
> works.
> 
> Does it work?  Please describe the testing you did, and the results.
> 
> Has this been confirmed to fix Miklos's FUSE and loopback problems?

I haven't yet tested it (will do), but I'm sure it does solve the
deadlock in balance_dirty_pages(), if for no other reason, that when
the queue is idle (no dirty or writeback pages), then it allowes the
caller to dirty some more pages.

The other deadlock, in throttle_vm_writeout() is still to be solved.

Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/