linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm readahead: Fix sys_readahead breakage by reverting 2MB limit (bug 79111)

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: <CA+55aFwhpaTPm+mok0VmypU2T2yvYX=E4hnQwPC4NVdxEzfh0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Jul 2014 14:58:54 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>
Cc:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Damien Ramonda <damien.ramonda@...el.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm readahead: Fix sys_readahead breakage by reverting 2MB
 limit (bug 79111)

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:43 PM, John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org> wrote:
>
> This is one of those perenial questions of how to tune this.  I agree
> we should increase the number, but shouldn't it be based on both the
> amount of memory in the machine, number of devices (or is it all just
> one big pool?) and the speed of the actual device doing readahead?

Sure. But I don't trust the throughput data for the backing device at
all, especially early at boot. We're supposed to work it out for
writeback over time (based on device contention etc), but I never saw
that working, and for reading I don't think we have even any code to
do so.

And trying to be clever and basing the read-ahead size on the node
memory size was what caused problems to begin with (with memory-less
nodes) that then made us just hardcode the maximum.

So there are certainly better options - in theory. In practice, I
think we don't really care enough, and the better options are
questionably implementable.

I _suspect_ the right number is in that 2-8MB range, and I would
prefer to keep it at the low end at least until somebody really has
numbers (and preferably from different real-life situations).

I also suspect that read-ahead is less of an issue with non-rotational
storage in general, since the only real reason for it tends to be
latency reduction (particularly the "readahead()" kind of big-hammer
thing that is really just useful for priming caches). So there's some
argument to say that it's getting less and less important.

            Linus
--
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/