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: <ZoLoJ-uBo9qyAlMg@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 07:32:23 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Yi Sun <yi.sun@...soc.com>
Cc: sunyibuaa@...il.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com, jaegeuk@...nel.org,
	chao@...nel.org, ebiggers@...gle.com,
	linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev,
	niuzhiguo84@...il.com, Hao_hao.Wang@...soc.com,
	yunlongxing23@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] workqueue: new struct io_work

Hello,

On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 03:51:37PM +0800, Yi Sun wrote:
> +/*
> + * If a work may do disk IO, it is recommended to use struct io_work
> + * instead of struct work_struct.
> + */
> +struct io_work {
> +	struct work_struct work;
> +
> +	/* If the work does submit_bio, io priority may be needed. */
> +	unsigned short ioprio;
> +	/* Record kworker's original io priority. */
> +	unsigned short ori_ioprio;
> +	/* Whether the work has set io priority? */
> +	long ioprio_flag;
> +};

There are fundamental limitations to this approach in terms of
prioritization. If you tag each work items with priority and then send them
to the same workqueue, there's nothing preventing a low priority issuer from
flooding the workqueue and causing a priority inversion. ie. To solve this
properly, you need per-issuer-class workqueue so that the concurrency limit
is not shared across different priorities.

Now, this limited implementation, while incomplete and easy to defeat, may
still be useful. After all, ioprio itself, I think, is flawed in the same
way. If f2fs wants to implement this internally, that's okay, I suppose, but
as a generic mechanism, I don't think this makes a lot of sense.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ