linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 11/15] blk-throttle: add interface to configure think time threshold

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: <20161128221415.GA94530@shli-mbp.local>
Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2016 14:14:16 -0800
From:   Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <Kernel-team@...com>, <axboe@...com>, <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 11/15] blk-throttle: add interface to configure think
 time threshold

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 05:08:18PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Shaohua.
> 
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 05:06:30PM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > Shouldn't this be a per-cgroup setting along with latency target?
> > > These two are the parameters which define how the cgroup should be
> > > treated time-wise.
> > 
> > It should be easy to make it per-cgroup. Just not sure if it should be
> > per-cgroup. The logic is if the disk is faster, wait time should be shorter to
> > not harm performance. So it sounds like a per-disk characteristic.
> 
> Yes, this is something dependent on the device, but also on the
> workload.  For both this parameter and the latency target, it seems
> that they should be specified along with the actual device limits so
> that they follow the same convention and can be specified per cgroup *
> block device.  What do you think?

That's ok, I'm totally fine to make it per cgroup and per disk.

Thanks,
Shaohua