linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/13] writeback: explicit low bound for vm.dirty

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:	Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:29:18 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] writeback: explicit low bound for vm.dirty_ratio

On Tue 10-08-10 13:57:12, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:12:06 +0900 (JST)
> KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Subject: writeback: explicit low bound for vm.dirty_ratio
> > > From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> > > Date: Thu Jul 15 10:28:57 CST 2010
> > > 
> > > Force a user visible low bound of 5% for the vm.dirty_ratio interface.
> > > 
> > > This is an interface change. When doing
> > > 
> > > 	echo N > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio
> > > 
> > > where N < 5, the old behavior is pretend to accept the value, while
> > > the new behavior is to reject it explicitly with -EINVAL.  This will
> > > possibly break user space if they checks the return value.
> > 
> > Umm.. I dislike this change. Is there any good reason to refuse explicit 
> > admin's will? Why 1-4% is so bad? Internal clipping can be changed later
> > but explicit error behavior is hard to change later.
> 
> As a data-point, I had a situation a while back where I needed a value below
> 1 to get desired behaviour.  The system had lots of RAM and fairly slow
> write-back (over NFS) so a 'sync' could take minutes.
> 
> So I would much prefer allowing not only 1-4, but also fraction values!!!
> 
> I can see no justification at all for setting a lower bound of 5.  Even zero
> can be useful - for testing purposes mostly.
  If you run on a recent kernel, /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_bytes and
dirty_bytes is what was introduced exactly for these purposes. Not that I
would think that magic clipping at 5% is a good thing...

									Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/