linux-kernel - Re: Dynamic switching of io

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:52:00 +0300
From:	Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>
To:	Fabio Checconi <fabio@...dalf.sssup.it>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: Dynamic switching of io_context

Fabio Checconi, on 12/16/2008 11:22 AM wrote:
>> In SCST (http://scst.sf.net) in some cases IO can be submitted 
>> asynchronously. This is possible for pass-through (i.e. using 
>> scsi_execute_async()) and BLOCKIO (i.e. using direct bio interface, see 
>> blockio_exec_rw() in 
>> http://scst.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/scst/trunk/scst/src/dev_handlers/scst_vdisk.c?revision=614&view=markup) 
>> backend. For them there's no need to have a per device pool of threads, one 
>> or more global thread(s) can perfectly do all the work. But it is very 
>> desirable for performance that all the IO is submitted in a dedicated IO 
>> context for each initiator (i.e. client), which originated it. I.e. 
>> commands from initiator 1 submitted in IO context IOC1, from initiator 2 - 
>> IOC2, etc. Most likely, the same approach would be very useful for NFS 
>> server as well.
>>
>> To achieve that it is necessary to have a possibility to switch IO 
>> context of the threads on the fly. I tried to implement that (see the 
>> attached patch), but hit BUG_ON(!cic->dead_key) in cic_free_func(), when 
>> session for initiator with the corresponding IO context was being 
>> destroyed by scst_free_tgt_dev(). At that point it was guaranteed that 
>> there was no outstanding IO with this IO context.
>>
>> So, I had to go to a more defensive approach to have for each pool of 
>> threads, including threads for async. IO, a dedicated IO context, which 
>> is currently implemented.
>>
>> Could you advice please what was going wrong? What should I do to 
>> achieve what's desired?
> 
> I think the problem may be that cfq expects cfq_exit_io_context()
> to be called before the last reference to an io context is put.
> Since cfq_exit_io_context() is called during process exit, and AFAICT
> you are not calling exit_io_context() on the given ioc, cfq finds it
> in an incorrect state.

With your hint I figured out that put_io_context() isn't sufficient and 
I should also call exit_io_context() instead of the latest 
put_io_context(). Thanks!

> I haven't seen the rest of the code, so I may be wrong, but I suppose
> that a better approach would be to use CLONE_IO to share io contexts,
> if possible.

Unfortunately, it would be very non-optimal. As it is known, to achieve 
the best performance with async. IO, it should be submitted by a limited 
number of threads <= CPU count. So, the only way to submit IO from each 
of, e.g. 100, clients in a dedicated per-client IO context is to 
dynamically switch io_context of the current threads to io_context of 
the client before IO submission.

Vlad

--
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/