linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] Per-bdi writeback flusher threads v20

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090924013229.GC6456@localhost>
Date:	Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:32:29 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Per-bdi writeback flusher threads v20

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:08:40PM +0800, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 09:05:41AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> 
> [ timeslice based limits on number of pages sent by the bdi threads ]
> 
> > > 
> > > The reason I prefer the timeslice idea is that we don't need the
> > > hardware to tell us how fast it is.  We just write for a while and move
> > > on.
> > 
> > That makes sense.  Note that the triple (pages, page segments,
> > submission time) can somehow adapt to hardware capabilities
> > (and at least won't hurt fast arrays).
> > 
> > - max pages are set to large enough number for big arrays
> > - max page segments could be based on the existing blk_queue_nonrot()
> > - submission time = 1s, which is mainly a safeguard for slow devices
> >   (ie. usb stick), to prevent one single inode from taking too much
> >   time. This time limit has little performance impacts.
> > 
> > Possible merits are
> > - these parameters are concrete ones and easy to handle
> > - it's natural to implement related logics in the VFS level
> > - file systems can do nothing to get most benefits
> > 
> > Also the (now necessary) per-invocation limit could be somehow
> > eliminated when balance_dirty_pages() does not do IO itself.
> 
> I think there are probably a lot of good ways to improve on our single
> max number of pages metric from today

Yes, as always, it benefits to work out some prototype solutions for
evaluation and comparison.

> , but I'm worried about the
> calculation time finding page segments.  The radix tree
> isn't all that well suited to it.

I didn't mean to "calculate" the page segments. But rather to do this
in write_cache_pages:

        if (this page index is 1MB away from prev page index)
                wbc->page_segments--;

> But, if you've got a patch I'd be happy to run a comparison against it.
> Jens' box will be better at showing any CPU cost to the radix walking.

Thanks!

Regards,
Fengguang
--
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/