linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET v4] blk-mq-scheduling framework

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: <dd9501e9-5fc2-66d3-5c62-f8b727a6b6c9@fb.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Dec 2016 08:20:39 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
To:     Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
CC:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Kernal <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v4] blk-mq-scheduling framework

On 12/19/2016 04:32 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
> 
>> Il giorno 17 dic 2016, alle ore 01:12, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com> ha scritto:
>>
>> This is version 4 of this patchset, version 3 was posted here:
>>
>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-block&m=148178513407631&w=2
>>
>> From the discussion last time, I looked into the feasibility of having
>> two sets of tags for the same request pool, to avoid having to copy
>> some of the request fields at dispatch and completion time. To do that,
>> we'd have to replace the driver tag map(s) with our own, and augment
>> that with tag map(s) on the side representing the device queue depth.
>> Queuing IO with the scheduler would allocate from the new map, and
>> dispatching would acquire the "real" tag. We would need to change
>> drivers to do this, or add an extra indirection table to map a real
>> tag to the scheduler tag. We would also need a 1:1 mapping between
>> scheduler and hardware tag pools, or additional info to track it.
>> Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I think the current approach
>> is cleaner.
>>
>> I wasn't going to post v4 so soon, but I discovered a bug that led
>> to drastically decreased merging. Especially on rotating storage,
>> this release should be fast, and on par with the merging that we
>> get through the legacy schedulers.
>>
> 
> I'm to modifying bfq.  You mentioned other missing pieces to come.  Do
> you already have an idea of what they are, so that I am somehow
> prepared to what won't work even if my changes are right?

I'm mostly talking about elevator ops hooks that aren't there in the new
framework, but exist in the old one. There should be no hidden
surprises, if that's what you are worried about.

On the ops side, the only ones I can think of are the activate and
deactivate, and those can be done in the dispatch_request hook for
activate, and put/requeue for deactivate.

Outside of that, some of them have been renamed, and some have been
collapsed (like activate/deactivate), and yet others again work a little
differently (like merging). See the mq-deadline conversion, and just
work through them one at the time.

-- 
Jens Axboe