linux-kernel - Re: CFQ timer precision

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:	Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:16:02 -0700
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: CFQ timer precision

On 11/16/2015 08:11 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hello,
>
> lately I was looking into a big performance hit we take when blkio
> controller is enabled and jbd2 thread ends up in a different cgroup than
> user process. E.g. dbench4 throughput drops from ~140 MB/s to ~20 MB/s.
> However artificial dbench4 is, this kind of drop will likely be clearly
> visible in real life workloads as well. With unified cgroup hierarchy
> the above cgroup split between jbd2 and user processes is unavoidable
> once you enable blkio controller so IMO we should accomodate that better.
>
> I have couple of CFQ idling improvements / fixes which I'll post later this
> week once I'll complete some round of benchmarking. They improve the
> throughput to ~40 MB/s which helps but clearly there's still a big room for
> improvement. The reason for the performance drop is essentially in idling
> we do to avoid starvation of CFQ queues. Now when idling in this context,
> current default of 8 ms idle window is far to large - we start the timer
> after the final request is completed and thus we effectively give the
> process 8 ms of CPU time to submit the next IO request. Which I think is
> usually far too much. The problem is that more fine grained idling is
> actually problematic because e.g. SUSE distro kernels have HZ=250 and thus
> 1 jiffy is 4 ms. Hence my proposal: Do you think it would be OK to convert
> CFQ to use highres timers and do all the accounting in microseconds?
> Then we could tune the idle time to be say 1ms or even autotune it based on
> process' think time both of which I expect would get us much closer to
> original throughput (4 ms idle window gets us to ~70 MB/s with my patches,
> disabling idling gets us to original throughput as expected).

Converting to a non-jiffies timer base should be quite fine. We didn't 
have hrtimers when CFQ was written :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/