linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blk-ioprio: Introduce promote-to-rt policy

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: <55a065e7-7d86-d58f-15ba-c631a427843e@acm.org>
Date:   Thu, 9 Feb 2023 11:09:33 -0800
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     Hou Tao <houtao@...weicloud.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, houtao1@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-ioprio: Introduce promote-to-rt policy

On 2/9/23 00:56, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 08-02-23 09:53:41, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> The test results I shared some time ago show that IOPRIO_CLASS_NONE was the
>> default I/O priority two years ago (see also https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20210927220328.1410161-5-bvanassche@acm.org/).
>> The none-to-rt policy increases the priority of bio's that have not been
>> assigned an I/O priority to RT. Does this answer your question?
> 
> Not quite. I know that historically we didn't set bio I/O priority in some
> paths (but we did set it in other paths such as some (but not all) direct
> IO implementations). But that was exactly a mess because how none-to-rt
> actually behaved depended on the exact details of the kernel internal IO
> path.  So my question is: Was none-to-rt actually just a misnomer and the
> intended behavior was "always override to RT"? Or what was exactly the
> expectation around when IO priority is not set and should be overridden?
> 
> How should it interact with AIO submissions with IOCB_FLAG_IOPRIO? How
> should it interact with task having its IO priority modified with
> ioprio_set(2)? And what if task has its normal scheduling priority modified
> but that translates into different IO priority (which happens in
> __get_task_ioprio())?
> 
> So I think that none-to-rt is just poorly defined and if we can just get
> rid of it (or redefine to promote-to-rt), that would be good. But maybe I'm
> missing some intended usecase...

Hi Jan,

We have no plans to use the ioprio_set() system call since it only 
affects foreground I/O and not page cache writeback.

While Android supports io_uring, there are no plans to support libaio in 
the Android C library (Bionic).

Regarding __get_task_ioprio(), I haven't found any code in that function 
that derives an I/O priority from the scheduling priority. Did I perhaps 
overlook something?

Until recently "none-to-rt" meant "if no I/O priority has been assigned 
to a task, use IOPRIO_CLASS_RT". Promoting the I/O priority to 
IOPRIO_CLASS_RT works for us. I'm fine with changing the meaning of 
"none-to-rt" into promoting the I/O priority class to RT. Introducing 
"promote-to-rt" as a synonym of "none-to-rt" is also fine with me.

Thanks,

Bart.