linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH BUGFIX] block, bfq: stress that low_latency must be off to get max throughput

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4c59a2d1-6c09-3041-8643-cfb18941f1f9@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 9 May 2017 08:54:29 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ulf.hansson@...aro.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
        broonie@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX] block, bfq: stress that low_latency must be off to
 get max throughput

On 05/09/2017 04:54 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
> The introduction of the BFQ and Kyber I/O schedulers has triggered a
> new wave of I/O benchmarks. Unfortunately, comments and discussions on
> these benchmarks confirm that there is still little awareness that it
> is very hard to achieve, at the same time, a low latency and a high
> throughput. In particular, virtually all benchmarks measure
> throughput, or throughput-related figures of merit, but, for BFQ, they
> use the scheduler in its default configuration. This configuration is
> geared, instead, toward a low latency. This is evidently a sign that
> BFQ documentation is still too unclear on this important aspect. This
> commit addresses this issue by stressing how BFQ configuration must be
> (easily) changed if the only goal is maximum throughput.

Added, thanks.

-- 
Jens Axboe