linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 5/6] blk-throttle: support to destroy throtl

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: <1ed63126-d2e6-f0b6-42ef-127ecb464955@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:39:43 +0800
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, chenhuacai@...nel.org, josef@...icpanda.com,
 jhs@...atatu.com, svenjoac@....de, raven@...maw.net, pctammela@...atatu.com,
 qde@...cy.de, zhaotianrui@...ngson.cn, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
 cgroups@...r.kernel.org, yi.zhang@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com,
 "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 5/6] blk-throttle: support to destroy throtl_data
 when blk-throttle is disabled

Hi,

在 2024/04/17 9:22, Tejun Heo 写道:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 09:13:34AM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>> Probably a better interface is for unloading to force blk-throtl to be
>>> deactivated rather than asking the user to nuke all configs.
>>
>> I was thinking that rmmod in this case should return busy, for example,
>> if bfq is currently used for some disk, rmmod bfq will return busy.
>>
>> Is there any example that unloading will deactivate resources that users
>> are still using?
> 
> Hmm... yeah, I'm not sure. Pinning the module while in use is definitely
> more conventional, so let's stick with that. It's usually achieved by
> inc'ing the module's ref on each usage, so here, the module refs would be
> counting the number of active rules, I guess.

Yes, aggred.
> 
> I'm not sure about modularization tho mostly because we've historically had
> a lot of lifetime issues around block and blkcg data structures and the
> supposed gain here is rather minimal. We only have a handful of these
> policies and they aren't that big.
> 
> If hot path overhead when not being used is concern, lazy init solves most
> of it, no?

For performance, yes. Another point is that we can reduce kernel size
this way, without losing support for blk-cgroup policies.

Yes, it's just blk-throttle is the most pain in the ass becasue it
exposed lots of implementations to block layer. Other rq_qos based
policy should be much easier.

I guess I'll do lazy init first, and then modularization for rq_qos,
and leave blk-throtl there for now. Perhaps add a new throtl model in
iocost can replace blk-throtl in the future.

BTW, currently during test of iocost, I found that iocost can already
achieve that, for example, by following configure:

echo "$dev enable=1 min=100 max=100" > qos
echo "$dev wbps=4096 wseqiops=1 wrandiops=1" > model

In the test, I found that wbps and iops is actually limited to the
set value.

Thanks,
Kuai

> 
> Thanks.
>