| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20070814084625.GA20265@2ka.mipt.ru> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:46:25 +0400 From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru> To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net> 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: Block device throttling [Re: Distributed storage.] On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 06:04:06AM -0700, Daniel Phillips (phillips@...nq.net) wrote: > Perhaps you never worried about the resources that the device mapper > mapping function allocates to handle each bio and so did not consider > this hole significant. These resources can be significant, as is the > case with ddsnap. It is essential to close that window through with > the virtual device's queue limit may be violated. Not doing so will > allow deadlock. This is not a bug, this is special kind of calculation - total limit is number of physical devices multiplied by theirs limits. It was done _on purpose_ to allow different device to have different limits (for example in distributed storage project it is possible to have both remote and local node in the same device, but local device should not have _any_ limit at all, but network one should). Virtual device essentially has _no_ limit. And that as done on purpose. -- Evgeniy Polyakov - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists