linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] remove rw_page() from brd, pmem and btt

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, 4 Aug 2017 12:21:09 -0600
From:   Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "karam . lee" <karam.lee@....com>,
        Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
        Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>, seungho1.park@....com,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] remove rw_page() from brd, pmem and btt

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:01:08AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> [ adding Dave who is working on a blk-mq + dma offload version of the
> pmem driver ]
> 
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 12:54:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> [..]
> >> Thanks for the testing. Your testing number is within noise level?
> >>
> >> I cannot understand why PMEM doesn't have enough gain while BTT is significant
> >> win(8%). I guess no rw_page with BTT testing had more chances to wait bio dynamic
> >> allocation and mine and rw_page testing reduced it significantly. However,
> >> in no rw_page with pmem, there wasn't many cases to wait bio allocations due
> >> to the device is so fast so the number comes from purely the number of
> >> instructions has done. At a quick glance of bio init/submit, it's not trivial
> >> so indeed, i understand where the 12% enhancement comes from but I'm not sure
> >> it's really big difference in real practice at the cost of maintaince burden.
> >
> > I tested pmbench 10 times in my local machine(4 core) with zram-swap.
> > In my machine, even, on-stack bio is faster than rw_page. Unbelievable.
> >
> > I guess it's really hard to get stable result in severe memory pressure.
> > It would be a result within noise level(see below stddev).
> > So, I think it's hard to conclude rw_page is far faster than onstack-bio.
> >
> > rw_page
> > avg     5.54us
> > stddev  8.89%
> > max     6.02us
> > min     4.20us
> >
> > onstack bio
> > avg     5.27us
> > stddev  13.03%
> > max     5.96us
> > min     3.55us
> 
> The maintenance burden of having alternative submission paths is
> significant especially as we consider the pmem driver ising more
> services of the core block layer. Ideally, I'd want to complete the
> rw_page removal work before we look at the blk-mq + dma offload
> reworks.
> 
> The change to introduce BDI_CAP_SYNC is interesting because we might
> have use for switching between dma offload and cpu copy based on
> whether the I/O is synchronous or otherwise hinted to be a low latency
> request. Right now the dma offload patches are using "bio_segments() >
> 1" as the gate for selecting offload vs cpu copy which seem
> inadequate.

Okay, so based on the feedback above and from Jens[1], it sounds like we want
to go forward with removing the rw_page() interface, and instead optimize the
regular I/O path via on-stack BIOS and dma offload, correct?

If so, I'll prepare patches that fully remove the rw_page() code, and let
Minchan and Dave work on their optimizations.

[1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/8/3/803