linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET] blk-throttle: implement proper hierarchy 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: <20130502185952.GJ30020@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 2 May 2013 14:59:52 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	axboe@...nel.dk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lizefan@...wei.com,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] blk-throttle: implement proper hierarchy support

On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 11:44:26AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:

[..]
> Also, if you're actually thinking about reimplementing blk-throttle,
> please do consider the followings.
> 
> * Currently, blk-throttle doesn't throttle the number of bios being
>   queued.  Note that this breaks the basic back-pressure mechanism
>   where IO pressure is propagated back to the issuer by throttling the
>   issuing task.  blk-throttle breaks that link and converts it to a
>   memory pressure.

Agreed. Implementing something along the lines of per group nr_requests
is needed.

> 
> * It's almost inherently unscalable with highops devices.  Given that
>   IO limiting doesn't require very fine granularity, I think doing
>   this per-cpu shouldn't be too hard.  e.g. build a per-cpu token
>   distributing hierarchy with rebalancing across CPUs happening
>   periodically.

Interesting. I thought for highops devices we will these multi queue
patches from jens and there we can probably implement per queue tokens
and rebalance tokens across queues periodically.

> 
> In short, right now, the goal is getting the hierarchy support
> acceptably working ASAP and yeap we wanna get the nested limits and at
> least certain level of fairness, but let's please implement something
> simple for now and strive for sophistification later because it's
> holding back everyone else.

I am fine with this. Having some hierarchical algorithm and not blocking
full hierarchical support for cgroup is better than not having any
hierachical support and wait for better implementation.

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/