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]
Date:   Mon, 9 Jan 2017 14:54:07 -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 V5 07/17] blk-throttle: make sure expire time isn't too
 big

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:32:58PM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> cgroup could be throttled to a limit but when all cgroups cross high
> limit, queue enters a higher state and so the group should be throttled
> to a higher limit. It's possible the cgroup is sleeping because of
> throttle and other cgroups don't dispatch IO any more. In this case,
> nobody can trigger current downgrade/upgrade logic. To fix this issue,
> we could either set up a timer to wakeup the cgroup if other cgroups are
> idle or make sure this cgroup doesn't sleep too long. Setting up a timer
> means we must change the timer very frequently. This patch chooses the
> latter. Making cgroup sleep time not too big wouldn't change cgroup
> bps/iops, but could make it wakeup more frequently, which isn't a big
> issue because throtl_slice * 8 is already quite big.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
> ---
>  block/blk-throttle.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
> index 0f65fce..41ec72c 100644
> --- a/block/blk-throttle.c
> +++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
> @@ -588,6 +588,10 @@ static void throtl_dequeue_tg(struct throtl_grp *tg)
>  static void throtl_schedule_pending_timer(struct throtl_service_queue *sq,
>  					  unsigned long expires)
>  {
> +	unsigned long max_expire = jiffies + 8 * throtl_slice;
> +
> +	if (time_after(expires, max_expire))
> +		expires = max_expire;

A comment explaining why we need this would be nice.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ