linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/11] blkiocg async support

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: <20100712131805.GA12918@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:18:05 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Nauman Rafique <nauman@...gle.com>,
	Munehiro Ikeda <m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>,
	taka@...inux.co.jp, Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>,
	Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/11] blkiocg async support

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 09:20:04AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:24:17 -0400
> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 05:55:23PM -0700, Nauman Rafique wrote:
> > 
> > [..]
> > > > Well, right.  I agree.
> > > > But I think we can work parallel.  I will try to struggle on both.
> > > 
> > > IMHO, we have a classic chicken and egg problem here. We should try to
> > > merge pieces as they become available. If we get to agree on patches
> > > that do async IO tracking for IO controller, we should go ahead with
> > > them instead of trying to wait for per cgroup dirty ratios.
> > > 
> > > In terms of getting numbers, we have been using patches that add per
> > > cpuset dirty ratios on top of NUMA_EMU, and we get good
> > > differentiation between buffered writes as well as buffered writes vs.
> > > reads.
> > > 
> > > It is really obvious that as long as flusher threads ,etc are not
> > > cgroup aware, differentiation for buffered writes would not be perfect
> > > in all cases, but this is a step in the right direction and we should
> > > go for it.
> > 
> > Working parallel on two separate pieces is fine. But pushing second piece
> > in first does not make much sense to me because second piece does not work
> > if first piece is not in. There is no way to test it. What's the point of
> > pushing a code in kernel which only compiles but does not achieve intented
> > purposes because some other pieces are missing.
> > 
> > Per cgroup dirty ratio is a little hard problem and few attempts have
> > already been made at it. IMHO, we need to first work on that piece and
> > get it inside the kernel and then work on IO tracking patches. Lets
> > fix the hard problem first that is necessary to make second set of patches
> > work.
> > 
> 
> I've just waited for dirty-ratio patches because I know someone is working on.
> But, hmm, I'll consider to start work by myself.
> 

If you can spare time to get it going, it would be great.

> (Off-topic)
> BTW, why io-cgroup's hierarchy level is limited to 2 ?
> Because of that limitation, libvirt can't work well...

Because current CFQ code is not written to support hierarchy. So it was
better to not allow creation of groups inside of groups to avoid suprises.

We need to figure out something for libvirt. One of the options would be
that libvirt allows blkio group creation in /root. Or one shall have to
look into hierarchical support in CFQ.

Things get little complicated in CFQ once we want to support hierarchy.
And to begin with I am not expecting many people to really create groups
inside groups. That's why I am currently focussing on making sure that
current infrastructure works well instead of just adding more features to
it.

Few things I am looking into.

- CFQ performance is not good at high end storage. So group control also
  suffers from same issue. Trying to introduce group_idle tunable to
  solve some of the problems.

- Even after group_idle, overall throughput suffers if groups don't have
  enough traffic to keep the array busy. Trying to create a mode where a
  user can specify to let fairness go if groups don't have enough traffic
  to keep array busy.

- Request descriptors are still per queue and not per group. I noticed the
  moment we create more groups, we start running into the issue of not
  enough request descriptors and it starts introducing serialization among
  groups. Need to have per group request descriptor intrastructure in.

First I am planning to sort out above issues and then look into other
enhancements.

Thanks
Vivek 
--
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/