linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next 00/11] support concurrent sync io for bfq on a specail occasion

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: <7C91FB1F-0690-4D1C-A631-98236F6DC55F@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:24:51 +0200
From:   Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, yi.zhang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 00/11] support concurrent sync io for bfq on a
 specail occasion



> Il giorno 13 apr 2022, alle ore 13:12, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> ha scritto:
> 
> On Sat 05-03-22 17:11:54, Yu Kuai wrote:
>> Currently, bfq can't handle sync io concurrently as long as they
>> are not issued from root group. This is because
>> 'bfqd->num_groups_with_pending_reqs > 0' is always true in
>> bfq_asymmetric_scenario().
>> 
>> This patchset tries to support concurrent sync io if all the sync ios
>> are issued from the same cgroup:
>> 
>> 1) Count root_group into 'num_groups_with_pending_reqs', patch 1-5;
> 
> Seeing the complications and special casing for root_group I wonder: Won't
> we be better off to create fake bfq_sched_data in bfq_data and point
> root_group->sched_data there? AFAICS it would simplify the code
> considerably as root_group would be just another bfq_group, no need to
> special case it in various places, no games with bfqg->my_entity, etc.
> Paolo, do you see any problem with that?
> 

I do see the benefits.  My only concern is that then we also need to
check/change the places that rely on the assumption that we would
change.

Thanks,
Paolo

> 								Honza
> -- 
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
> SUSE Labs, CR