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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:48:00 +0800 From: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> To: Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@...il.com> CC: jens.axboe@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paolo.valente@...more.it, fabio@...dalf.sssup.it, Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] BFQ I/O Scheduler (second take) CC: Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> Fabio Checconi wrote: > Hi Jens, hi all, > Hi Fabio, > this is an updated version of the patchset introducing the BFQ (Budget > Fair Queueing) I/O scheduler. It is based on CFQ and it has been > developed trying to improve the predictability and the fairness of the > service prvided, without penalizing the aggregate throughput. > > This new version hopefully addresses the issues pointed out after the > first submission[1]: > > 1) it introduces a bitmap to notify priority changes to the bfq/cfq; > 2) it introduces a timeout to put an higher limit to the time a > task can take to consume its budget; > 3) it supports hierarchical scheduling. > So this is another cgroup-aware block i/o controller. ;) People are sending different proposals for bio controller. A summary on this can be found here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121798534716673&w=2 And a new proposal sent by Vivek several days ago: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/11/6/227 And there are some discussions about can we modify the elevator layer and create a common layer so we can provide group control for all the 4 io schedulers. (in the above mail thread) You may share some ideas with us. > With the introduction of a budget timeout, each task is still assigned > a budget measured in number of sectors instead of amount of time, > but a budget is not served to its exhaustion if it's taking too much > to complete. Budgets are still scheduled using a modified version > of WF2Q+. > > Using huge values for max_budget turns the scheduler into a pure > time-domain proportional share one, and the timeout controls the duration > of the time quanta. > > WRT the support for hierarchical scheduling, that is being discussed > so much in these days, this scheduler does not add anything new, it > supports proportional share distribution of disk bandwidth among > full cgroup hierarchies; the mapping from requests to cgroups is > correct only in case of synchronous reads. > > The overall diffstat is the following: > > block/Kconfig.iosched | 25 + > block/Makefile | 1 + > block/bfq-cgroup.c | 743 +++++++++++++++ > block/bfq-ioc.c | 375 ++++++++ > block/bfq-iosched.c | 2010 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > block/bfq-sched.c | 950 +++++++++++++++++++ > block/bfq.h | 514 +++++++++++ > block/blk-ioc.c | 27 +- > block/cfq-iosched.c | 10 +- > fs/ioprio.c | 9 +- > include/linux/cgroup_subsys.h | 6 + > include/linux/iocontext.h | 18 +- > 12 files changed, 4669 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > For a complete description of the algorithm and of its properties > please refer to [2], (where extensive experiments on older hw can > also be found), and for some performance measurements and implementation > details, to [3]. > > [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/1/234 > [2] http://algo.ing.unimo.it/people/paolo/disk_sched/ > [3] http://feanor.sssup.it/~fabio/linux/bfq/ > > As usual, any kind of feedback will be greatly appreciated, thanks > in advance. > > Fabio Checconi, Paolo Valente -- 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