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]

Date:	Fri, 2 Oct 2009 11:40:20 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	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, Oct 02, 2009 at 05:32:00PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 17:27 +0200, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 12:55:25PM +0200, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually I am not touching this code. Looking at the V10, I have not
> > > changed anything here in idling code.
> > 
> > I based my analisys on the original patch:
> > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0907.1/01793.html
> > 
> > Mike, can you confirm which version of the fairness patch did you use
> > in your tests?
> 
> That would be this one-liner.
> 

Ok. Thanks. Sorry, I got confused and thought that you are using "io
controller patches" with fairness=1.

In that case, Corrado's suggestion of refining it further and disabling idling
for seeky process only on non-rotational media (SSD and hardware RAID), makes
sense to me.

Thanks
Vivek
  
> o CFQ provides fair access to disk in terms of disk time used to processes.
>   Fairness is provided for the applications which have their think time with
>   in slice_idle (8ms default) limit.
> 
> o CFQ currently disables idling for seeky processes. So even if a process
>   has think time with-in slice_idle limits, it will still not get fair share
>   of disk. Disabling idling for a seeky process seems good from throughput
>   perspective but not necessarily from fairness perspecitve.
> 
> 0 Do not disable idling based on seek pattern of process if a user has set
>   /sys/block/<disk>/queue/iosched/fairness = 1.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
> ---
>  block/cfq-iosched.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6/block/cfq-iosched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/block/cfq-iosched.c
> +++ linux-2.6/block/cfq-iosched.c
> @@ -1953,7 +1953,7 @@ cfq_update_idle_window(struct cfq_data *
>  	enable_idle = old_idle = cfq_cfqq_idle_window(cfqq);
>  
>  	if (!atomic_read(&cic->ioc->nr_tasks) || !cfqd->cfq_slice_idle ||
> -	    (cfqd->hw_tag && CIC_SEEKY(cic)))
> +	    (!cfqd->cfq_fairness && cfqd->hw_tag && CIC_SEEKY(cic)))
>  		enable_idle = 0;
>  	else if (sample_valid(cic->ttime_samples)) {
>  		if (cic->ttime_mean > cfqd->cfq_slice_idle)
> 
--
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/