linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] block/throttle: Add IO throttled information in blkio.throttle.

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]

Date:	Tue, 4 Sep 2012 12:13:11 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Tao Ma <tm@....ma>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] block/throttle: Add IO throttled information in
 blkio.throttle.

Hello, Tao Ma.

On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 09:58:43PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
> Vivek and I have talked about its usage in my first try. See the thread
> here. https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/22/81
> And I am OK to say it again here. In our case, we use flashcache as a
> block device and the bad thing is that flashcache is a bio-based dm
> target and we can't use block io controller here to control the weight
> of different cgroups. So io throttle is chosen. But as io throttle can
> only set a hard upper limit for different instances, it makes the
> control not flexible enough. Say with io controller, if there is no
> requests form the cgroup with weight 1000, a cgroup with 500 can use the
> whole bandwidth of the underlying device. But if we set 1000 iops for
> cgroup A and 500 iops for cgroup B in io throttle, cgroup B can't exceed
> its limit even if cgroup A has no request pending. So if we can export
> the io_queued information out to the system admin, they can write some
> daemon and in the above case, increase the upper limit of cgroup B to
> some number say 1000. It helps us to utilize the device more
> efficiently. Does it make sense to you?

Somewhat, in a pretty twisted way. :P

> > Adding throttle.io_queued could be a bit more consistent?
>
> sorry, I don't know what is your meaning here. You mean some codes like
> 	blkg_rwstat_add(&stats_cpu->throttle.io_queude, rw, 1)?

So, there already is io_dispatched, so if you have io_queued, you can
read the two and calculate the difference from userland (reading
io_queued first would probably be better to avoid triggering the
throttled condition spuriously).  That way, you don't have to worry
about synchronizing stats across cpus and it's a simple addition of a
stat conter.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/