linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 10/15] blk-throttle: add a simple idle detection

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: <20161128222148.GB12948@htj.duckdns.org>
Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2016 17:21:48 -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 10/15] blk-throttle: add a simple idle detection

Hello, Shaohua.

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 05:15:18PM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > Hmm... I'm not sure thinktime is the best measure here.  Think time is
> > used by cfq mainly to tell the likely future behavior of a workload so
> > that cfq can take speculative actions on the prediction.  However,
> > given that the implemented high limit behavior tries to provide a
> > certain level of latency target, using the predictive thinktime to
> > regulate behavior might lead to too unpredictable behaviors.
> 
> Latency just reflects one side of the IO. Latency and think time haven't any
> relationship. For example, a cgroup dispatching 1 IO per second can still have
> high latency. If we only take latency account, we will think the cgroup is
> busy, which is not justified.

Yes, the two are indepndent metrics; however, whether a cgroup is
considered idle or not affects whether blk-throttle will adhere to the
latency target or not.  Thinktime is a magic number which can be good
but whose behavior can be very difficult to predict from outside the
black box.  What I was trying to say was that putting in thinktime
here can greatly weaken the configured latency target in unobvious
ways.

> > Moreover, I don't see why we need to bother with predictions anyway.
> > cfq needed it but I don't think that's the case for blk-throtl.  It
> > can just provide idle threshold where a cgroup which hasn't issued an
> > IO over that threshold is considered idle.  That'd be a lot easier to
> > understand and configure from userland while providing a good enough
> > mechanism to prevent idle cgroups from clamping down utilization for
> > too long.
> 
> We could do this, but it will only work for very idle workload, eg, the
> workload is completely idle. If workload dispatches IO sporadically, this will
> likely not work. The average think time is more precise for predication.

But we can increase sharing by upping the target latency.  That should
be the main knob - if low, the user wants stricter service guarantee
at the cost of lower overall utilization; if high, the workload can
deal with higher latency and the system can achieve higher overall
utilization.  I think the idle detection should be an extra mechanism
which can be used to ignore cgroup-disk combinations which are staying
idle for a long time.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun