linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] block: adjust CFS request expire time

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: <cd332ec7-2e29-419a-87a4-e32852ad96e7@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:12:20 -0800
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: "zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
 Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
 linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>, steve.kang@...soc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] block: adjust CFS request expire time

Where is patch 1/2 of this series? I don't see it in my mailbox.

On 2/20/24 03:45, zhaoyang.huang wrote:
> From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>
> 
> According to current policy, CFS's may suffer involuntary IO-latency by

Did you perhaps mean "cause" instead of "suffer"?

> being preempted by RT/DL tasks or IRQ.

For which workloads? Sequential I/O or random I/O? If it is for random I/O,
please take a look at patch "scsi: ufs: core: Add CPU latency QoS support
for UFS driver"
(https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231219123706.6463-1-quic_mnaresh@quicinc.com/)
and let us know whether or not the Power Management Quality of Service (PM QoS)
framework is perhaps a better solution.

Thanks,

Bart.