linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] blk-throttle: simplify logic by token bucket algorithm

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]

Date:	Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:47:48 +0800
From:	Hong zhi guo <honkiko@...il.com>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Hong Zhiguo <zhiguohong@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] blk-throttle: simplify logic by token bucket algorithm

Hi, Vivek,

Thanks for your elaboration. I got your points. I'll update the patch
to have such logic.

Do you think adding below logic in tg_with_in_bps_limit enough?
if (!sq->nr_queued[rw]) {
    trim the token to bucket depth;
}

Thanks

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 02:09:40PM +0800, Hong zhi guo wrote:
>> Hi, Vivek,
>>
>> Thanks for your careful review. I'll rename t_c to last_dispatch, it's
>> much better.
>>
>> For the big burst issue, I've different opinion. Let's discuss it.
>>
>> Any time a big IO means a big burst. Even if it's throttled at first
>> time, queued in
>> the service_queue, and then waited for a while, when it's delivered
>> out, it IS still
>> a big burst. So throttling the bio for another while makes no sense.
>
> If a malicious application is creating a big BIO and sending it out, then
> effective IO rate as seen by application will be much higher than
> throttling limit.
>
> So yes, a burst is anyway going to happen when big IO is dispatched
> to disk, but the question is when should that burst be allowed. What's
> the effective IO rate application should see.
>
>>
>> If a group has been idle for 5 minutes, then it owns the credit to
>> deliver a big IO
>> (within 300 * bps bytes). And the extra credit will be cut off after
>> the delivery.
>
> I think there are couple of issues here.
>
> - First of all, if you think that a group is entitiled for tokens even
>   when it is not doing IO, then why are you truncating the tokens after
>   dispatch of a BIO.
>
> - Second in general it does not seem right that a group is entitiled to
>   tokens even when no IO is happening or group is not backlogged. That
>   would mean a group will not do IO for 10 hours and then be entitiled
>   to those tokens suddenly after 10 hours with a huge burst.
>
> So I think you also agree that a group should not be entitiled to
> tokens when group is not backlogged and that's why you seem to be
> truncating extra tokens after dispatch of a BIO. If that's the case,
> then even for first BIO, ideally a group should not be given tokens
> for idle time.
>
> Just think that an application has a huge BIO, say size 2MB. And group
> has limit of say 8KB per second. Now if group has been idling long enough,
> this BIO will be dispatched immediately. And effective rate a group
> will be is much higher than 8KB/s. Which is not right, IMO.
>
> If you argue that token entitilement for idle groups is not right and
> doing it for first BIO in a batch is exception for simplicity reasons,
> that still might be fine. But right now that does not seem to be the
> case.
>
> Thanks
> Vivek



-- 
best regards
Hong Zhiguo
--
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/