linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RFC] CFQ: Make prio_trees per cfq group basis to improve IO performance

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, 16 Jul 2010 10:21:46 -0400
From:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc:	Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>,
	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] CFQ: Make prio_trees per cfq group basis to improve IO performance

Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> writes:

> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 05:21:00PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
>> Currently, prio_trees is global, and we rely on cfqq_close() to search
>> a coorperator. If the returned cfqq and the active cfqq don't belong to
>> the same group, coorperator searching fails. Actually, that's not the case.
>> Even if cfqq_close() returns a cfqq which belong to another cfq group, 
>> it's still likely that a coorperator(same cfqg) resides in prio_trees.
>> This patch introduces per cfq group prio_trees that should solve the above
>> issue.
>> 
>
> Hi Gui,
>
> I am not sure I understand the issue here.  So are you saying that once
> we find a cfqq which is close but belongs to a different group we reject
> it. But there could be another cfqq in the same group which is not as
> close but still close enough.
>
> For example, assume there are two queues q1 and q2 and in group and third
> queue q3 in group B. Assume q1 is active queue and we are searching for
> cooperator. If cooperator code finds q3 as closest then we will not pick
> this queue as it belongs to a different group. But it could happen that
> q2 is also close enough and we never considered that possibility.
>
> If yes, then its a good theoritical concern but I am worried practically
> how often does it happen. Do you have any workload which suffers because
> of this?

That was my reading.  It also means that, in the case that we have
cgroups in use, each rb tree will be smaller.

> I am not too inclined to push more complexity in CFQ until and unless we
> have a good use case.

I don't think this adds complexity, does it?  It simply moves the
priority trees up a level, which is arguably where they belong.

>> +static struct cfq_queue *
>> +cfq_prio_tree_lookup(struct cfq_group *cfqg, struct rb_root *root,
>> +		     sector_t sector, struct rb_node **ret_parent,
>> +		     struct rb_node ***rb_link)
>> +{

You can get rid of the cfqg argument.  I know you're just keeping with
the prior model (where cfqd was passed in and not used), but let's kill
it.

Cheers,
Jeff
--
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/