linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/13] bcache: inherit the optimal I/O size

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, 21 Sep 2020 23:09:48 +0800
From:   Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <Johannes.Thumshirn@....com>,
        Justin Sanders <justin@...aid.com>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com,
        linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] bcache: inherit the optimal I/O size

On 2020/9/21 22:00, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 05:54:59PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
>> I am not sure whether virtual bcache device's optimal request size can
>> be simply set like this.
>>
>> Most of time inherit backing device's optimal request size is fine, but
>> there are two exceptions,
>> - Read request hits on cache device
>> - User sets sequential_cuttoff as 0, all writing may go into cache
>> device firstly.
>> For the above two conditions, all I/Os goes into cache device, using
>> optimal request size of backing device might be improper.
>>
>> Just a guess, is it OK to set the optimal request size of the virtual
>> bcache device as the least common multiple of cache device's and backing
>> device's optimal request sizes ?
> 
> Well, if the optimal I/O size is wrong, the read ahead size also is
> wrong.  Can we just drop the setting?
> 

I feel this is something should be fixed. Indeed I overlooked it until
you point out the issue now.

The optimal request size and read ahead pages hint are necessary, but
current initialization is simple. A better way might be dynamically
setting them depends on the cache mode and some special configuration.

By your inspiration, I want to ACK your original patch although it
doesn't work fine for all condition. Then we may know these two settings
(ra_pages and queue_io_opt) should be improved for more situations. At
lease for most part of the situations they provide proper hints.

How do you think of the above idea ?

Coly Li