linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blk-throtl: optimize IOPS throttle for large IO scenarios

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]

Message-ID: <34a6f4b5-9055-e519-5693-068f8dcb169c@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:06:18 +0800
From:   brookxu <brookxu.cn@...il.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     axboe@...nel.dk, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-throtl: optimize IOPS throttle for large IO scenarios

Tejun Heo wrote on 2021/7/27 5:46:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 12:35:54AM +0800, brookxu wrote:
>> In order to avoid code duplication and IOPS stability problems caused by estimating
>> the equivalent number of IOs, and to avoid potential deadlock problems caused by
>> synchronization through queue_lock. I tried to count the number of splited IOs in
>> the current window through two atomic counters. Add the value of the atomic variable
>> when calculating io_disp[rw], which can also avoid the problem of inaccurate IOPS in
>> large IO scenarios. How do you think of this approach? Thanks for your time.
> 
> I guess it's okay but am still not a big fan of adding another hook. This is
> primarily because blk-throtl is sitting too early in the stack - e.g. rq_qos
> is doing the same thing but sits after the split path - and it's a bit nasty
> to add an additional hook for it.
> 
> Do you think it can be an option to relocate the blk-throtl hooks to the
> same spots as rq-qos or, even better, make it use rq-qos?

Make blk-throttle use rq-qos may be more elegant. But I found that there may be at least
one problem that is difficult to solve. blk-throttle supports separate throttle for read
and write IOs, which means that we cannot suspend tasks during throttle, but rq-qos
throttle IOs by suspending tasks.

We may be able to relocate the blk-throttle hooks to the rq-qos hooks. Since we may not
be able to replace the throttle hook, in this case, if we register a rq-qos to the system,
part of the blk-throttle hooks is in rq-qos and part hooks not, which feels a bit confusing.
In addition, we may need to implement more hooks, such as IO merge hook.

Thanks for you time.

> Thanks.
>