| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:13:23 -0700
From: Ashish Samant <ashish.samant@...cle.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
CC: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Srinivas Eeda <srinivas.eeda@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: fuse scalability part 1
On 05/18/2015 08:13 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> This part splits out an "input queue" and a "processing queue" from the
> monolithic "fuse connection", each of those having their own spinlock.
>
> The end of the patchset adds the ability to "clone" a fuse connection. This
> means, that instead of having to read/write requests/answers on a single fuse
> device fd, the fuse daemon can have multiple distinct file descriptors open.
> Each of those can be used to receive requests and send answers, currently the
> only constraint is that a request must be answered on the same fd as it was read
> from.
>
> This can be extended further to allow binding a device clone to a specific CPU
> or NUMA node.
>
> Patchset is available here:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mszeredi/fuse.git for-next
>
> Libfuse patches adding support for "clone_fd" option:
>
> git://git.code.sf.net/p/fuse/fuse clone_fd
>
> Thanks,
> Miklos
>
>
We did some performance testing without these patches and with these
patches (with -o clone_fd option specified). Sorry for the delay in
getting these done. We did 2 types of tests:
1. Throughput test : We did some parallel dd tests to read/write to FUSE
based database fs on a system with 8 numa nodes and 288 cpus. The
performance here is almost equal to the the per-numa patches we
submitted a while back.
1) Writes to single mount
dd processes throughput(without patchset) throughput(with
patchset)
in parallel
4 633
Mb/s 606 Mb/s
8 583.2
Mb/s 561.6 Mb/s
16 436
Mb/s 640.6 Mb/s
32 500.5
Mb/s 718.1 Mb/s
64 440.7 Mb/s
1276.8 Mb/s
128 526.2
Mb/s 2343.4 Mb/s
2) Reading from single mount
dd processes throughput(without patchset)
throughput(with patchset)
in parallel
4 1171
Mb/s 1059 Mb/s
8 1626
Mb/s 677 Mb/s
16 1014
Mb/s 2240.6 Mb/s
32 807.6
Mb/s 2512.9 Mb/s
64 985.8
Mb/s 2870.3 Mb/s
128 1355
Mb/s 2996.5 Mb/s
2. Spinlock access times test: We also ran some tests within the kernel
to check the time spent in accessing the spinlocks per request in both
cases. As can be seen, the time taken per request to access the spinlock
in the kernel code throughout the lifetime of the request is 30X to 100X
better in the 2nd case (with patchset)
dd processes Time/req(without patchset) Time/req(with
patchset)
in parallel
4 0.025 ms
0.00685 ms
8 0.174 ms
0.0071 ms
16 0.9825
ms 0.0115 ms
32 2.4965 ms
0.0315 ms
64 4.8335 ms 0.071 ms
128 5.972 ms
0.1812 ms
In conclusion, splitting of fc->lock into multiple locks and splitting
the request queues definitely helps performance.
Thanks,
Ashish
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists