linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: use only per-device readahead limit

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:	Fri, 21 Aug 2015 23:21:21 +0300
From:	Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: use only per-device readahead limit

21.08.2015, 21:17, "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru> wrote:
>>  There are devices, which require custom readahead limit.
>>  For instance, for RAIDs it's calculated as number of devices
>>  multiplied by chunk size times 2.
>
> So afaik, the default read-ahead size is 128kB, which is actually
> smaller than the old 512-page limit.
>
> Which means that you probably changed "ra_pages" somehow. Is it some
> system tool that does that automatically, and if so based on what,
> exactly?

It's just a raid driver. For instance, drivers/ms/raid5.c:6898 .

On my setup I got unexpectedly even slight perfomance increase 
over O_DIRECT case and over old memory-based readahead limit, 
as you can see from numbers in the commit message (1.2GB/s vs 1.1 GB/s).

So, I like an idea to delegate the readahead limit calculation to the underlying i/o level.

> I'm also slightly worried about the fact that now the max read-ahead
> may actually be zero, 

For "normal" readahead nothing changes. Only readahead syscall and 
madvise(MADV_WILL_NEED) cases are affected.
I think, it's ok to do nothing, if readahead was deliberately disabled.

> and/or basically infinite (there's a ioctl to
> set it that only tests that it's not negative). Does everything react
> ok to that?

It's an open question, if we have to add some checks to avoid miss-configuration.
In any case, we can check the limit on setting rather then adjust them dynamically.

--
Roman
--
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/