linux-ext4 - Re: batching support for transactions

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]

Message-ID: <20071003210256.GO5578@schatzie.adilger.int>
Date:	Wed, 3 Oct 2007 15:02:56 -0600
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
To:	Ric Wheeler <ric@....com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org, "Feld, Andy" <Feld_Andy@....com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: batching support for transactions

On Oct 03, 2007  06:42 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> >>With 2 threads writing to the same directory, we instantly drop down to 
> >>234 files/sec.
> >
> >Is this with HZ=250?
> 
> Yes - I assume that with HZ=1000 the batching would start to work again 
> since the penalty for batching would only be 1ms which would add a 0.3ms 
> overhead while waiting for some other thread to join.

This is probably the easiest solution, but at the same time using HZ=1000
adds overhead to the server because of extra interrupts, etc.

> >It would seem one of the problems is that we shouldn't really be
> >scheduling for a fixed 1 jiffie timeout, but rather only until the
> >other threads have a chance to run and join the existing transaction.
> 
> This is really very similar to the domain of the IO schedulers - when do 
> you hold off an IO and/or try to combine it.

I was thinking the same.

> >my guess would be that yield() doesn't block the first thread long enough
> >for the second one to get into the transaction (e.g. on an 2-CPU system
> >with 2 threads, yield() will likely do nothing).
> 
> Andy tried playing with yield() and it did not do well. Note this this 
> server is a dual CPU box, so your intuition is most likely correct.

How many threads did you try?

> >It makes sense to track not only the time to commit a single synchronous
> >transaction, but also the time between sync transactions to decide if
> >the initial transaction should be held to allow later ones.
> 
> Yes, that is what I was trying to suggest with the rate. Even if we are 
> relatively slow, if the IO's are being synched at a low rate, we are 
> effectively adding a potentially nasty latency for each IO.
> 
> That would give us two measurements to track per IO device - average 
> commit time and this average IO's/sec rate. That seems very doable.

Agreed.

> >Alternately, it might be possible to check if a new thread is trying to
> >start a sync handle when the previous one was also synchronous and had
> >only a single handle in it, then automatically enable the delay in that 
> >case.
> 
> I am not sure that this avoids the problem with the current defaults at 
> 250HZ where each wait is sufficient to do 3 fully independent 
> transactions ;-)

I was trying to think if there was some way to non-busy-wait that is
less than 1 jiffie.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html