From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To: Bernd Schubert <bschubert@ddn.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm>,
Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@gmail.com>,
"miklos@szeredi.hu" <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"josef@toxicpanda.com" <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
"jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com" <jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com>,
"laoar.shao@gmail.com" <laoar.shao@gmail.com>,
"kernel-team@meta.com" <kernel-team@meta.com>,
Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v9 2/3] fuse: add optional kernel-enforced timeout for requests
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 20:54:55 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241128115455.GG10431@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8c5d292f-b343-435f-862e-a98910b6a150@ddn.com>
Cc-ing Tomasz
On (24/11/28 11:23), Bernd Schubert wrote:
> > Thanks for the pointers again, Bernd.
> >
> >> Miklos had asked for to abort the connection in v4
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAJfpegsiRNnJx7OAoH58XRq3zujrcXx94S2JACFdgJJ_b8FdHw@mail.gmail.com/raw
> >
> > OK, sounds reasonable. I'll try to give the series some testing in the
> > coming days.
> >
> > // I still would probably prefer "seconds" timeout granularity.
> > // Unless this also has been discussed already and Bernd has a link ;)
>
>
> The issue is that is currently iterating through 256 hash lists +
> pending + bg.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAJnrk1b7bfAWWq_pFP=4XH3ddc_9GtAM2mE7EgWnx2Od+UUUjQ@mail.gmail.com/raw
Oh, I see.
> Personally I would prefer a second list to avoid the check spike and latency
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/9ba4eaf4-b9f0-483f-90e5-9512aded419e@fastmail.fm/raw
That's good to know. I like the idea of less CPU usage in general,
our devices a battery powered so everything counts, to some extent.
> What is your opinion about that? I guess android and chromium have an
> interest low latencies and avoiding cpu spikes?
Good question.
Can't speak for android, in chromeos we probably will keep it at 1 minute,
but this is because our DEFAULT_HUNG_TASK_TIMEOUT is larger than that (we
use default value of 120 sec). There are setups that might use lower
values, or even re-define default value, e.g.:
arch/arc/configs/axs101_defconfig:CONFIG_DEFAULT_HUNG_TASK_TIMEOUT=10
arch/arc/configs/axs103_defconfig:CONFIG_DEFAULT_HUNG_TASK_TIMEOUT=10
arch/arc/configs/axs103_smp_defconfig:CONFIG_DEFAULT_HUNG_TASK_TIMEOUT=10
arch/arc/configs/hsdk_defconfig:CONFIG_DEFAULT_HUNG_TASK_TIMEOUT=10
arch/arc/configs/vdk_hs38_defconfig:CONFIG_DEFAULT_HUNG_TASK_TIMEOUT=10
arch/arc/configs/vdk_hs38_smp_defconfig:CONFIG_DEFAULT_HUNG_TASK_TIMEOUT=10
arch/powerpc/configs/mvme5100_defconfig:CONFIG_DEFAULT_HUNG_TASK_TIMEOUT=20
In those cases 1 minute fuse timeout will overshot HUNG_TASK_TIMEOUT
and then the question is whether HUNG_TASK_PANIC is set.
On the other hand, setups that set much lower timeout than
DEFAULT_HUNG_TASK_TIMEOUT=120 will have extra CPU activities regardless,
just because watchdogs will run more often.
Tomasz, any opinions?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-28 11:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-14 19:13 [PATCH RESEND v9 0/3] fuse: add kernel-enforced request timeout option Joanne Koong
2024-11-14 19:13 ` [PATCH RESEND v9 1/3] fs_parser: add fsparam_u16 helper Joanne Koong
2024-11-14 19:13 ` [PATCH RESEND v9 2/3] fuse: add optional kernel-enforced timeout for requests Joanne Koong
2024-11-28 10:44 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2024-11-28 11:00 ` Bernd Schubert
2024-11-28 11:09 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2024-11-28 11:23 ` Bernd Schubert
2024-11-28 11:54 ` Sergey Senozhatsky [this message]
2024-12-02 9:45 ` Tomasz Figa
2024-12-02 14:43 ` Bernd Schubert
2024-12-02 19:29 ` Joanne Koong
2024-12-03 4:31 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2024-12-03 5:11 ` Joanne Koong
2024-12-04 14:40 ` Tomasz Figa
2024-12-04 14:51 ` Brian Geffon
2024-12-04 15:09 ` Bernd Schubert
2024-12-05 3:23 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2024-12-05 11:07 ` Brian Geffon
2024-12-03 11:01 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2024-12-06 0:06 ` Joanne Koong
2024-12-06 4:28 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2024-12-04 13:14 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2024-12-05 23:10 ` Joanne Koong
2024-12-04 13:47 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2024-12-05 23:29 ` Joanne Koong
2024-12-06 3:26 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2024-12-06 0:37 ` Jeff Layton
2024-12-06 19:19 ` Joanne Koong
2024-12-06 20:06 ` Jeff Layton
2024-12-06 16:30 ` Etienne Martineau
2024-12-06 19:05 ` Joanne Koong
2024-12-06 19:56 ` Etienne
2024-12-06 21:52 ` Joanne Koong
2024-12-06 20:12 ` Jeff Layton
2024-12-06 21:54 ` Joanne Koong
2024-11-14 19:13 ` [PATCH RESEND v9 3/3] fuse: add default_request_timeout and max_request_timeout sysctls Joanne Koong
2024-12-06 0:43 ` Jeff Layton
2024-12-06 18:16 ` Joanne Koong
2024-11-21 22:02 ` [PATCH RESEND v9 0/3] fuse: add kernel-enforced request timeout option Josef Bacik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20241128115455.GG10431@google.com \
--to=senozhatsky@chromium.org \
--cc=bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm \
--cc=bschubert@ddn.com \
--cc=jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=joannelkoong@gmail.com \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=laoar.shao@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=tfiga@chromium.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox