linux-kernel - Re: dm: Make MIN_IOS, et al, tunable via sysctl.

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: <20130820222439.GA5883@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Aug 2013 18:24:39 -0400
From:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To:	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
Cc:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
	device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: dm: Make MIN_IOS, et al, tunable via sysctl.

On Tue, Aug 20 2013 at  5:57pm -0400,
Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 17:47 -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2013, Frank Mayhar wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 17:22 -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2013, Frank Mayhar wrote:
> > > > > The device mapper and some of its modules allocate memory pools at
> > > > > various points when setting up a device.  In some cases, these pools are
> > > > > fairly large, for example the multipath module allocates a 256-entry
> > > > > pool and the dm itself allocates three of that size.  In a
> > > > > memory-constrained environment where we're creating a lot of these
> > > > > devices, the memory use can quickly become significant.  Unfortunately,
> > > > > there's currently no way to change the size of the pools other than by
> > > > > changing a constant and rebuilding the kernel.
> > > > I think it would be better to set the values to some low value (1 should 
> > > > be enough, there is 16 in some places that is already low enough). There 
> > > > is no need to make it user-configurable, because the user will see no 
> > > > additional benefit from bigger mempools.
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe multipath is the exception - but other dm targets don't really need 
> > > > big mempools so there is no need to make the size configurable.
> > > 
> > > The point is not to make the mempools bigger, the point is to be able to
> > > make them _smaller_ for memory-constrained environments.  In some cases,
> > > even 16 can be too big, especially when creating a large number of
> > > devices.
> > > 
> > > In any event, it seems unfortunate to me that these values are
> > > hard-coded.  One shouldn't have to rebuild the kernel to change them,
> > > IMHO.
> > 
> > So make a patch that changes 16 to 1 if it helps on your system (I'd like 
> > to ask - what is the configuration where this kind of change helps?). 
> > There is no need for that to be tunable, anyone can live with mempool size 
> > being 1.
> 
> I reiterate:  It seems unfortunate that these values are hard-coded.  It
> seems to me that a sysadmin should be able to tune them according to his
> or her needs.  Particularly when the same kernel is being run on many
> machines that may have different constraints; building a special kernel
> for each set of constraints doesn't scale.
> 
> And as I said, it's a memory-constrained environment.

Mikulas' point is that you cannot reduce the size to smaller than 1.
And aside from rq-based DM, 1 is sufficient to allow for forward
progress even when memory is completely consumed.

A patch that simply changes them to 1 but makes the rq-based DM
mempool's size configurable should actually be fine.

Mike
--
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/