linux-ext4 - Re: jbd/jbd2 performance improvements

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: <48F62893.9060606@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:29:55 -0400
From:	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
CC:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: jbd/jbd2 performance improvements

Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> As I mentioned on the ext4 call yesterday, there was an interesting
> thread on LKML that wasn't cc'ed onto the linux-ext4 mailing list.  So
> in case folks missed it, it might be worth taking a look at this mail
> thread:
>
> 	[PATCH] Give kjournald a IOPRIO_CLASS_RT io priority
>
> 	http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/10/1/405
>
> The main issue that got discussed was the age-old "entaglement" problem.
> The jbd/jbd2 layer is supposed to avoid this by not blocking the
> "current" transaction why the blocks from the previous "committing"
> transaction are still being written out to disk.  Apparently this was
> broken sometime in the 2.5 time-frame:
>
> 	http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/10/2/41
> 	http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/10/2/322
>
> Later in the thread, a major contention point in do_get_write_access()
> was identified as the problem:
>
> 	http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/10/3/7
>
> ... and then andrew produced the following "hacky" fix:
>
> 	http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/10/3/22
>
> If someone has time to runs some benchmarks to see how this improves
> things, especially on a workload that has plenty of "engtanglements",
> that would be great.  (I bet Ric's fs_mark run should do a good job;
> fsyncs to creates lots of commits and the need to modify blocks that had
> been modified in the previous tansactions.)
>
> If we can get some quick testing done, and it shows really good results,
> this could be something that could try fast-tracking into the 2.6.28
> merge window.
>
> 						- Ted
>   

We are going to try and poke at this - do you suspect a single or 
multi-threaded test would work best?

Ric

--
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