linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 00/15] blk-throttle: add .high 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]

Message-ID: <986ada43-3217-3277-724a-5c76f8dad74e@sandisk.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:46:22 -0800
From:   Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>
To:     Shaohua Li <shli@...com>, <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <Kernel-team@...com>, <axboe@...com>, <tj@...nel.org>,
        <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 00/15] blk-throttle: add .high limit

On 11/14/2016 02:22 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
> The background is we don't have an ioscheduler for blk-mq yet, so we can't
> prioritize processes/cgroups. This patch set tries to add basic arbitration
> between cgroups with blk-throttle. It adds a new limit io.high for
> blk-throttle. It's only for cgroup2.

Hello Shaohua,

My understanding of this work is that a significant part of it will have 
to be reverted once blk-mq supports I/O scheduling, e.g. the code for 
detecting whether the I/O submitter is idle. Shouldn't this kind of 
infrastructure be added after support has been added in blk-mq for I/O 
scheduling?

Thanks,

Bart.