linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/13] writeback: bdi write bandwidth estimation

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20101124143818.GB14502@localhost>
Date:	Wed, 24 Nov 2010 22:38:18 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] writeback: bdi write bandwidth estimation

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:31:57PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 22:21 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > 
> > Hmm, but why not avoid locking at all?  With per-cpu bandwidth vars,
> > each CPU will see slightly different bandwidth, but that should be
> > close enough and not a big problem.
> 
> I don't think so, on a large enough machine some cpus might hardly ever
> use a particular BDI and hence get very stale data.

Good point!

> Also, it increases the memory footprint of the whole solution.

Yeah, maybe not a good trade off.

> > > +void bdi_update_write_bandwidth(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> > > +{
> > > +     unsigned long time_now, write_now;
> > > +     long time_delta, write_delta;
> > > +     long bw;
> > > +
> > > +     if (!spin_try_lock(&bdi->bw_lock))
> > > +             return;
> > 
> > spin_try_lock is good, however is still global state and risks
> > cacheline bouncing.. 
> 
> If there are many concurrent writers to the BDI I don't think this is
> going to be the top sore spot, once it is we can think of something
> else.

When there are lots of concurrent writers, we'll target at ~100ms
pause time, hence the update frequency will be lowered accordingly.

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/