linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RF C/T/D] Unmapped page cache control

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: <4BA10B13.70404@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:02:11 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC:	Chris Webb <chris@...chsys.com>, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	KVM development list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kevin Wolf <kwolf@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RF C/T/D] Unmapped page cache control - via boot parameter

On 03/17/2010 06:52 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 06:22:29PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>    
>> They should be reorderable.  Otherwise host filesystems on several
>> volumes would suffer the same problems.
>>      
> They are reordable, just not as extremly as the the page cache.
> Remember that the request queue really is just a relatively small queue
> of outstanding I/O, and that is absolutely intentional.  Large scale
> _caching_ is done by the VM in the pagecache, with all the usual aging,
> pressure, etc algorithms applied to it.

We already have the large scale caching and stuff running in the guest.  
We have a stream of optimized requests coming out of guests, running the 
same algorithm again shouldn't improve things.  The host has an 
opportunity to do inter-guest optimization, but given each guest has its 
own disk area, I don't see how any reordering or merging could help here 
(beyond sorting guests according to disk order).

> The block devices have a
> relatively small fixed size request queue associated with it to
> facilitate request merging and limited reordering and having fully
> set up I/O requests for the device.
>    

We should enlarge the queues, increase request reorderability, and merge 
flushes (delay flushes until after unrelated writes, then adjacent 
flushes can be collapsed).

Collapsing flushes should get us better than linear scaling (since we 
collapes N writes + M flushes into N writes and 1 flush).  However the 
writes themselves scale worse than linearly, since they now span a 
larger disk space and cause higher seek penalties.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/