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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 15:42:58 -0800 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] blk-throtl: make latency= absolute Hello, Shaohua. On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 03:12:12PM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > The percentage latency makes sense, but the absolute latency doesn't to me. A > 4k IO latency could be much smaller than 1M IO latency. If we don't add > baseline latency, we can't specify a latency target which works for both 4k and > 1M IO. It isn't adaptive for sure. I think it's still useful for the following reasons. 1. The absolute latency target is by nature both workload and device dependent. For a lot of use cases, coming up with a decent number should be possible. 2. There are many use cases which aren't sensitive to the level where they care much about the different between small and large requests. e.g. protecting a managerial job so that it doesn't completely stall doesn't require tuning things to that level. A value which is comfortably higher than usually expected latencies would often be enough (say 100ms). 3. It's also useful for verification / testing. Thanks. -- tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists