linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] block: loop: avoiding too many pending per work I/O

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150501150545.GA10705@infradead.org>
Date:	Fri, 1 May 2015 08:05:45 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Justin M. Forbes" <jforbes@...oraproject.org>,
	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, "v4.0" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] block: loop: avoiding too many pending per work I/O

On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 10:22:21AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Why would you do this fall back?  Shouldn't we just communicate
> > > a concurrency limit to the workqueue code?
> > 
> > It can't work with workqueue's concurrency limit because the
> > queue is shared by all loop block devices, and the limit is on the
> > whole queue.
> 
> Maybe just cap max_active to NR_OF_LOOP_DEVS * 16 or sth?  But idk,
> how many concurrent workers are we talking about and why are we
> capping per-queue concurrency from worker pool side instead of command
> tag side?

Also we probably should have per device workqueues to start with..
--
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/