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
| ||
|
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