linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH BUGFIX/IMPROVEMENT 0/4] bfq: two fixes and one improvement related to I/O control

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: <4873FEA2-9E53-4C76-A6B9-4AC82CDC8E6E@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:21:57 +0200
From:   Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, broonie@...nel.org,
        bfq-iosched@...glegroups.com, oleksandr@...alenko.name
Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX/IMPROVEMENT 0/4] bfq: two fixes and one improvement
 related to I/O control



> Il giorno 16 ago 2018, alle ore 21:10, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> ha scritto:
> 
> On 8/16/18 10:51 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> Hi Jens,
>> 
>> while working a little bit on cgroups I/O control, I found two nasty
>> bugs in bfq. They break bandwidth control in simple configurations
>> with one-process groups. These bugs are fixed by the first two patches
>> in this series.
>> 
>> These fixes improved I/O control so much, that I could reduce the
>> write overcharge factor, used by bfq to counter write-induced
>> issues. This reduction is performed by the third patch.
>> 
>> The fourth patch contains a little code improvement I made in a
>> function that has to do with I/O control.
>> 
>> I hope we are still in time for 4.19.
> 
> Patches look fine to me. You are in fact several weeks late for 4.19, I
> need to have anything that's going in to 4.19 by -rc6 or -rc7 time
> (depending on whether we have an -rc8 or not). This is to ensure that it
> gets plenty of time in linux-next as well. I've queued up patches this
> time (since they were small), but please send them in in due time next
> time.
> 

Thanks for your patience. Next time I'll respect due time.

Paolo

> -- 
> Jens Axboe
>