linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] ext3: per-process soft-syncing data=ordered mode

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]

Date:	Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:39:22 +0300
From:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] ext3: per-process soft-syncing data=ordered mode

Chris Mason wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 January 2008, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > Chris Snook wrote:
> > > > > Al Boldi wrote:
> > > > > > This RFC proposes to introduce a tunable which allows to disable
> > > > > > fsync and changes ordered into writeback writeout on a
> > > > > > per-process basis like this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       echo 1 > /proc/`pidof process`/softsync
> > > > >
> > > > > This is basically a kernel workaround for stupid app behavior.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly right to some extent, but don't forget the underlying
> > > > data=ordered starvation problem, which looks like a genuinely deep
> > > > problem maybe related to blockIO.
> > >
> > >   It is a problem with the way how ext3 does fsync (at least that's
> > > what we ended up with in that konqueror problem)... It has to flush
> > > the current transaction which means that app doing fsync() has to wait
> > > till all dirty data of all files on the filesystem are written (if we
> > > are in ordered mode). And that takes quite some time... There are
> > > possibilities how to avoid that but especially with freshly created
> > > files, it's tough and I don't see a way how to do it without some
> > > fundamental changes to JBD.
> >
> > Ok, but keep in mind that this starvation occurs even in the absence of
> > fsync, as the benchmarks show.
> >
> > And, a quick test of successive 1sec delayed syncs shows no hangs until
> > about 1 minute (~180mb) of db-writeout activity, when the sync abruptly
> > hangs for minutes on end, and io-wait shows almost 100%.
>
> Do you see this on older kernels as well?  The first thing we need to
> understand is if this particular stall is new.

2.6.24,22,19 and 2.4.32 show the same problem.


Thanks!

--
Al

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/