linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 02/15] blk-throttle: add .high interface

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:   Wed, 23 Nov 2016 16:11:10 -0500
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kernel-team@...com, axboe@...com, vgoyal@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 02/15] blk-throttle: add .high interface

Hello,

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 03:08:36PM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> Yep, the limit could be high or max. It's doable moving the restrictions on
> input, but will increase trouble using the limits. If high is bigger than max,
> can I set high to max? if not, I'd prefer to keep the restrictions.

You can do that internally but userland should keep seeing what it
configured.

> > I haven't read the whole thing yet but this looks a bit suspicious.  A
> > css going offline indicates that the destruction of the css started.
> > I don't get why that'd reset high limits.  There can be a lot of async
> > IOs after offline.
> 
> Ok. We do want to reset the limits. Because if no cgroup has high limit, we
> definitively should use max limit for all cgroups. The whole state machine
> (switching between high and max limit) is meaningless in that case.
> 
> Is pd_free_fn a good place to guarantee anyc IOs finish?

Yeap.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun