linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/45] writeback: quit on wrap for .range

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: <20091007112302.GR30316@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:23:02 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	Myklebust Trond <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	"jens.axboe@...cle.com" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/45] writeback: quit on wrap for .range_cyclic (afs)

On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 06:47:11PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 06:21:30PM +0800, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 11:17:06AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > > Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Convert wbc.range_cyclic to new behavior: when past EOF, abort writeback
> > > > of the inode, which instructs writeback_single_inode() to delay it for
> > > > a while if necessary.
> > > > 
> > > > It removes one inefficient .range_cyclic IO pattern when writeback_index
> > > > wraps:
> > > > 	submit [10000-10100], (wrap), submit [0-100]
> > > > In which the submitted pages may be consisted of two distant ranges.
> > > > 
> > > > It also prevents submitting pointless IO for busy overwriters.
> > > > 
> > > > CC: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> > 
> > I don't see why. Then the inode is given less write bandwidth than
> > those which don't wrap (or wrap on "nice" boundaries).
> 
> The "return on wrapped" behavior itself only offers a natural seek
> boundary to the upper layer.  It's mainly the "whether to delay"
> policy that will affect (overall) bandwidth.
> 
> If we choose to not sleep, and to go on with other inodes and then
> back to this inode, no bandwidth will be lost.
> 
> If we have done work with other inodes (if any), and choose to sleep
> for a while before restarting this inode, then we could lose bandwidth.
> The plus side is, we possibly avoid submitting extra IO if this inode
> is being busy overwritten. So it's a tradeoff.
> 
> The behavior after this patchset is, to keep busy as long as we can
> write any pages (in patch 38/45). So we still opt for bandwidth :)

No I mean bandwidth fairness between inodes.

--
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/