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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:09:24 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <>
To:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <>
Cc:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Josef Bacik <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] blkcg: implement blk-ioweight

Hello, Toke.

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 02:17:45PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> One question: How are equal-weight cgroups scheduled relative to each
> other? Or requests from different processes within a single cgroup for
> that matter? FIFO? Round-robin? Something else?

Once each cgroup got their hierarchical weight and current vtime for
the period, they don't talk to each other.  Each is expected to do the
right thing on their own.  When the period ends, the timer looks at
how the device is performing, how much each used and so on and then
make necessary adjustments.  So, there's no direct cross-cgroup
synchronization.  Each is throttled to their target level

Within a single cgroup, the IOs are FIFO.  When an IO has enough vtime
credit, it just passes through.  When it doesn't, it always waits
behind any other IOs which are already waiting.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists