linux-kernel - Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10

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: <1254476214.11022.8.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date:	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:36:54 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Ulrich Lukas <stellplatz-nr.13a@...enparkplatz.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
	nauman@...gle.com, dpshah@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	mikew@...gle.com, fchecconi@...il.com, paolo.valente@...more.it,
	ryov@...inux.co.jp, fernando@....ntt.co.jp, jmoyer@...hat.com,
	dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	righi.andrea@...il.com, m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com, agk@...hat.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	jmarchan@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10

On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 11:24 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
> > It's not hard to make the latency good, the hard bit is making sure we 
> > also perform well for all other scenarios.
> 
> Looking at the numbers from Mike:
> 
>  | dd competing against perf stat -- konsole -e exec timings, 5 back to 
>  | back runs
>  |                                                         Avg
>  | before         9.15    14.51     9.39    15.06     9.90   11.6
>  | after [+patch] 1.76     1.54     1.93     1.88     1.56    1.7
> 
> _PLEASE_ make read latencies this good - the numbers are _vastly_ 
> better. We'll worry about the 'other' things _after_ we've reached good 
> latencies.
> 
> I thought this principle was a well established basic rule of Linux IO 
> scheduling. Why do we have to have a 'latency vs. bandwidth' discussion 
> again and again? I thought latency won hands down.

Just a note:  In the testing I've done so far, we're better off today
than ever, and I can't recall beating on root ever being anything less
than agony for interactivity.  IO seekers look a lot like CPU sleepers
to me.  Looks like both can be as annoying as hell ;-)

	-Mike

--
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/