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: <20161129172435.GA22330@htj.duckdns.org>
Date:   Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:24:35 -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 13/15] blk-throttle: add a mechanism to estimate IO
 latency

Hello, Shaohua.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 02:22:20PM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> To do this, we sample some data, eg, average latency for request size
> 4k, 8k, 16k, 32k, 64k. We then use an equation f(x) = a * x + b to fit
> the data (x is request size in KB, f(x) is the latency). Then we can use
> the equation to estimate IO target latency for any request.

As discussed separately, it might make more sense to just use the avg
of the closest bucket instead of trying to line-fit the buckets, but
it's an implementation detail and whatever which works is fine.

> Hard disk is completely different. Latency depends on spindle seek
> instead of request size. So this latency target feature is for SSD only.

I'm not sure about this.  While a disk's latency profile is way higher
and more erratic than SSDs, that doesn't make latency target useless.
Sure, it'll be more crude but there's a significant difference between
a cgroup having <= 20ms overall latency and experiencing multi-sec
latency.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ