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  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:	Sun, 2 Nov 2014 17:59:43 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <>
To:	Wolfram Sang <>
Cc:,,, Mark Brown <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Balbir Singh <>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] drivers: spi/i2c: account completions as iowait

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:58:07PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:

> However, researching the net, users currently interpret iowait entirely as
> blkio wait. Furthermore, io_schedule() calls delayacct_blkio_{start|end}() which
> worked fine for my tests with I2C but might show that iowait was really meant as
> blkiowait? So, should other subsystems use it?

I would tend to agree with that; historically this has always been about
blkio, not device io.

> To make it more confusing, some people (like Peter Zijlstra [1]) seem to like
> iowait gone, so maybe it is all not worth it?

Yeah, iowait accounting is terminally broken :-) Mostly because the
iowait is accounted per-cpu but that is a very tenuous relation because
the IO devices are not per IO and blocking tasks are not associated with
any particular CPU -- after all they're not consuming CPU time.

If people really think its worth; we could invent new IO-wait measure
that do make sense -- maybe, but the current thing is complete bollocks.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists