linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3] 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20121019150011.GE27052@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:00:11 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Robin Dong <robin.k.dong@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Robin Dong <sanbai@...bao.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Tao Ma <boyu.mt@...bao.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] block/throttle: Add IO throttled information in
 blkio.throttle

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 04:24:04PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Vivek.
> 
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 09:49:45AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Can you explain a bit more. Whe do you mean by "total number queued". I
> > think throttle.io_queued will total number of bios queued in the cgroup
> > at the time of query.
> 
> Instead of exposing the number that blk-throttle currently has
> deferred, we can expose the number of bios that have been sent to
> blk-throttle and the number of bios which left blk-throttle, both
> monotically increasing and the difference indicating the number being
> deferred.

Ok, I see it now. So we currently already maintain the number of IOs
dispatched from blk-throttle  in throttle.io_serviced. Now you are 
suggesting that maintain another counter which keeps track of total
number IOs submitted to blk-throttle, say throttle.io_submitted? I think
using throttle.io_queued will be little confusing because in CFQ we
already use blkio.io_queued to represent number of IOs currently queued
and it is not monotonically increasing value.

> That way we can stick to the usual stats facility.

So how does this help? Because it is a monotonically increasing value
we can use per cpu stats without extra locking? Or somthing else?

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/