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: <20100726064149.GP14369@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:11:49 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Munehiro Ikeda <m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>, taka@...inux.co.jp,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>,
	Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/11] blkiocg async support

* Munihiro Ikeda <m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com> [2010-07-08 22:57:13]:

> These RFC patches are trial to add async (cached) write support on blkio
> controller.
> 
> Only test which has been done is to compile, boot, and that write bandwidth
> seems prioritized when pages which were dirtied by two different processes in
> different cgroups are written back to a device simultaneously.  I know this
> is the minimum (or less) test but I posted this as RFC because I would like
> to hear your opinions about the design direction in the early stage.
> 
> Patches are for 2.6.35-rc4.
> 
> This patch series consists of two chunks.
> 
> (1) iotrack (patch 01/11 -- 06/11)
> 
> This is a functionality to track who dirtied a page, in exact which cgroup a
> process which dirtied a page belongs to.  Blkio controller will read the info
> later and prioritize when the page is actually written to a block device.
> This work is originated from Ryo Tsuruta and Hirokazu Takahashi and includes
> Andrea Righi's idea.  It was posted as a part of dm-ioband which was one of
> proposals for IO controller.
>

Does this reuse the memcg infrastructure, if so could you please add a
summary of the changes here.
 
> 
> (2) blkio controller modification (07/11 -- 11/11)
> 
> The main part of blkio controller async write support.
> Currently async queues are device-wide and async write IOs are always treated
> as root group.
> These patches make async queues per a cfq_group per a device to control them.
> Async write is handled by flush kernel thread.  Because queue pointers are
> stored in cfq_io_context, io_context of the thread has to have multiple
> cfq_io_contexts per a device.  So these patches make cfq_io_context per an
> io_context per a cfq_group, which means per an io_context per a cgroup per a
> device.
> 
> 
> This might be a piece of puzzle for complete async write support of blkio
> controller.  One of other pieces in my head is page dirtying ratio control.
> I believe Andrea Righi was working on it...how about the situation?
> 

Greg posted the last set of patches, we are yet to see another
iteration.

> And also, I'm thinking that async write support is required by bandwidth
> capping policy of blkio controller.  Bandwidth capping can be done in upper
> layer than elevator.  However I think it should be also done in elevator layer
> in my opinion.  Elevator buffers and sort requests.  If there is another
> buffering functionality in upper layer, it is doubled buffering and it can be
> harmful for elevator's prediction.
>


-- 
	Three Cheers,
	Balbir
--
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/