| 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: <20090415170415.GE15067@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:04:15 -0400 From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> To: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp> Cc: dm-devel@...hat.com, vivek.goyal2008@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, agk@...hat.com Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Re: dm-ioband: Test results. On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 06:30:22PM +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote: > Hi Vivek, > > > I quickly looked at the xls sheet. Most of the test cases seem to be > > direct IO. Have you done testing with buffered writes/async writes and > > been able to provide service differentiation between cgroups? > > > > For example, two "dd" threads running in two cgroups doing writes. > > Thanks for taking a look at the sheet. I did a buffered write test > with "fio." Only two "dd" threads can't generate enough I/O load to > make dm-ioband start bandwidth control. The following is a script that > I actually used for the test. > > #!/bin/bash > sync > echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches > arg="--size=64m --rw=write --numjobs=50 --group_reporting" > echo $$ > /cgroup/1/tasks > fio $arg --name=ioband1 --directory=/mnt1 --output=ioband1.log & > echo $$ > /cgroup/2/tasks > fio $arg --name=ioband2 --directory=/mnt2 --output=ioband2.log & > echo $$ > /cgroup/tasks > wait > Ryo, Can you also send bio-cgroup patches which apply to 2.6.30-rc1 so that I can do testing for async writes. Why have you split the regular patch and bio-cgroup patch? Do you want to address only reads and sync writes? In the above test case, do these "fio" jobs finish at different times? In my testing I see that two dd generate a lot of traffic at IO scheudler level but traffic seems to be bursty. So when higher weight process has done some IO, it seems to disappear for .2 to 1 seconds and in that time other writer gets to do lot of IO and eradicates any service difference provided so far. I am not sure where this high priority writer is blocked and that needs to be looked into. But I am sure that you will also face the same issue. Thanks Vivek > I created two dm-devices to easily monitor the throughput of each > cgroup by iostat, and gave weights of 200 for cgroup1 and 100 for > cgroup2 that means cgroup1 can use twice bandwidth of cgroup2. The > following is a part of the output of iostat. dm-0 and dm-1 corresponds > to ioband1 and ioband2. You can see the bandwidth is according to the > weights. > > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle > 0.99 0.00 6.44 92.57 0.00 0.00 > > Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn > dm-0 3549.00 0.00 28392.00 0 28392 > dm-1 1797.00 0.00 14376.00 0 14376 > > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle > 1.01 0.00 4.02 94.97 0.00 0.00 > > Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn > dm-0 3919.00 0.00 31352.00 0 31352 > dm-1 1925.00 0.00 15400.00 0 15400 > > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle > 0.00 0.00 5.97 94.03 0.00 0.00 > > Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn > dm-0 3534.00 0.00 28272.00 0 28272 > dm-1 1773.00 0.00 14184.00 0 14184 > > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle > 0.50 0.00 6.00 93.50 0.00 0.00 > > Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn > dm-0 4053.00 0.00 32424.00 0 32424 > dm-1 2039.00 8.00 16304.00 8 16304 > > Thanks, > Ryo Tsuruta -- 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