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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:02:44 -0800 From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net> To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: A peek at the future of storage On Wednesday 12 December 2007 09:46, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:46:18AM -0800, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > Incidentally, we ran our tests with 128 knfsd threads. The default > > of 8 threads produces miserable performance on the SSD, which gave > > us a good scare on our initial test run. It would be very nice to > > implement an algorithm to scale the knfsd thread pool > > automatically, in order to eliminate this class of thing that can > > go wrong. If somebody became inspired to take on that little > > project that would be great, otherwise it is in our pipeline for, > > hmm, Christmas delivery. (Exactly which Christmas is left > > unspecified.) > > People have proposed writing a daemon that just reads > /proc/net/rpc/nfsd periodically and uses that to adjust the number of > threads from userspace, probably subject to some limits in a config > file someplace. (Think that could do the job, or is there some reason > this would be easier in the kernel?) I didn't actually say "kernel", though that was what I was thinking, perhaps just out of habit. It seems to me it would be a relatively small change to the existing code, essentially just finishing the idea, without needing to be patched up by userspace. So how would a userspace daemon know that kernel is blocking and new threads are needed? In kernel this is pretty easy: when a new request arrives, look on the thread list and if none are available, generate a new one. Something special needs to be done to handle the case where there are no threads available because they are all piled up on a semaphore due to, for example, somebody unplugging the network cable for a remote disk. We have to avoid generating infinite threads in that case. Ideas? Daniel -- 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