linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.37: Multi-second I/O latency while untarring

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:	Fri, 11 Feb 2011 10:44:38 -0500
From:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To:	Andrew Lutomirski <andy@...o.us>
Cc:	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.37: Multi-second I/O latency while untarring

Excerpts from Andrew Lutomirski's message of 2011-02-11 10:08:52 -0500:
> As I type this, I have an ssh process running that's dumping data into
> a fifo at high speed (maybe 500Mbps) and a tar process that's
> untarring from the same fifo onto btrfs.  The btrfs fs is mounted -o
> space_cache,compress.  This machine has 8GB ram, 8 logical cores, and
> a fast (i7-2600) CPU, so it's not an issue with the machine struggling
> under load.
> 
> Every few tens of seconds, my system stalls for several seconds.
> These stalls cause keyboard input to be lost, firefox to hang, etc.
> 
> Setting tar's ionice priority to best effort / 7 or to idle makes no difference.
> 
> ionice idle and queue_depth = 1 on the disk (a slow 2TB WD) also makes
> no difference.
> 
> max_sectors_kb = 64 in addition to the above doesn't help either.
> 
> latencytop shows regular instances of 2-7 *second* latency, variously
> in sync_page, start_transaction, btrfs_start_ordered_extent, and
> do_get_write_access (from jbd2 on my ext4 root partition).
> 
> echo 3 >drop_caches gave me 7 GB free RAM.  I still had stalls when
> 4-5 GB were still free (so it shouldn't be a problem with important
> pages being evicted).
> 
> In case it matters, all of my partitions are on LVM on dm-crypt, but
> this machine has AES-NI so the overhead from that should be minimal.
> In fact, overall CPU usage is only about 10%.
> 
> What gives?  I thought this stuff was supposed to be better on modern kernels.

We can tell more if you post the full traces from latencytop.  I have a
patch here for latencytop that adds a -c mode, which dumps the traces
out to a text files.

http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/latencytop.patch

Based on what you have here, I think it's probably a latency problem
between btrfs and the dm-crypt stuff.  How easily can setup a test
partition without dm-crypt?

-chris
--
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/