linux-kernel - Re: Networked filesystems vs backing_dev

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: <1193520625.27652.30.camel@twins>
Date:	Sat, 27 Oct 2007 23:30:25 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, sfrench@...ba.org,
	jaharkes@...cmu.edu, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	vandrove@...cvut.cz
Subject: Re: Networked filesystems vs backing_dev_info

On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 16:02 -0500, Steve French wrote:
> On 10/27/07, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I had me a little look at bdi usage in networked filesystems.
> >
> >  NFS, CIFS, (smbfs), AFS, CODA and NCP
> >
> > And of those, NFS is the only one that I could find that creates
> > backing_dev_info structures. The rest seems to fall back to
> > default_backing_dev_info.
> >
> > With my recent per bdi dirty limit patches the bdi has become more
> > important than it has been in the past. While falling back to the
> > default_backing_dev_info isn't wrong per-se, it isn't right either.
> >
> > Could I implore the various maintainers to look into this issue for
> > their respective filesystem. I'll try and come up with some patches to
> > address this, but feel free to beat me to it.
> 
> I would like to understand more about your patches to see what bdi
> values makes sense for CIFS and how to report possible congestion back
> to the page manager. 

So, what my recent patches do is carve up the total writeback cache
size, or dirty page limit as we call it, proportionally to a BDIs
writeout speed. So a fast device gets more than a slow device, but will
not starve it.

However, for this to work, each device, or remote backing store in the
case of networked filesystems, need to have a BDI.

>   I had been thinking about setting bdi->ra_pages
> so that we do more sensible readahead and writebehind - better
> matching what is possible over the network and what the server
> prefers.  

Well, you'd first have to create backing_dev_info instances before
setting that value :-)

>   SMB/CIFS Servers typically allow a maximum of 50 requests
> in parallel at one time from one client (although this is adjustable
> for some).

That seems like a perfect point to set congestion.

So in short, stick a struct backing_dev_info into whatever represents a
client, initialize it using bdi_init(), destroy using bdi_destroy().

Mark it congested once you have 50 (or more) outstanding requests, clear
congestion when you drop below 50.

and you should be set.


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)