linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling

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: <478E5926.7070100@davidnewall.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:51:10 +1030
From:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
To:	righiandr@...rs.sourceforge.net
CC:	David Newall <david@...idnewall.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling

Andrea Righi wrote:
> David Newall wrote:
>   
>> Andrea Righi wrote:
>>     
>>> [I/O-intensive] processes can noticeably impact the system responsiveness
>>> for some time and playing with tasks' priority is not always an
>>> acceptable solution.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Why?
>>
>>     
>
> Well, I mean, we can't use 'nice' to grant less priority for the I/O
> intensive app, because the I/O intensive app itself doesn't need a lot
> of CPU. Instead, the I/O-bound app eats all the available I/O bandwidth,
> that's a different issue.

That's what I was thinking.  Your original, "not always an acceptable
solution," made me wonder if you were referring to something obscure.
--
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/