linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] improve the performance of large sequential write NFS workloads

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: <20091218220741.GB21131@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:07:41 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Steve Rago <sar@...-labs.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	"jens.axboe" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] improve the performance of large sequential write NFS
 workloads


* Steve Rago <sar@...-labs.com> wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 20:41 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Steve Rago <sar@...-labs.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > Also, I don't think this needs to have a sysctl, it should just work.
> > > 
> > > The sysctl is a *good thing* in that it allows the eager writeback behavior 
> > > to be tuned and shut off if need be.  I can only test the changes on a 
> > > finite set of systems, so better safe than sorry.
> > 
> > This issue has been settled many years ago and that's not what we do in the 
> > Linux kernel. We prefer patches to core code where we are reasonably sure they 
> > result in good behavior - and then we fix bugs in the new behavior, if any. 
> > 
> > (Otherwise odd sysctls would mushroom quickly and the system would become 
> > untestable in practice.)
> > 
> > 	Ingo
> 
> I don't disagree, but "that's not what we do" hardly provides insight into 
> making the judgment call. [...]

I gave you an example of the problems that arise, see the last sentence above.

> [...]  In this case, the variety of combinations of NFS server speed, NFS 
> client speed, transmission link speed, client memory size, and server memory 
> size argues for a tunable parameter, because one value probably won't work 
> well in all combinations.  Making it change dynamically based on these 
> parameters is more complicated than these circumstances call for, IMHO.

So having crappy tunables is the reason to introduce even more tunables? I 
think you just gave a good second example of why we dont want sysctls for 
features like this.

	Ingo
--
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/