linux-ext4 - RE: ext4 dbench performance with CONFIG_PREEMPT

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:57:35 -0700
From:	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
To:	"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc:	"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>,
	keith maanthey <kmannth@...ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>
Subject: RE: ext4 dbench performance with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT

On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 17:48 -0600, Chen, Tim C wrote:
> 
> >tytso@....edu wrote 
> >
> >Yeah, I'm very much aware of that.  What worries me is that locking
> >problems in the jbd2 layer could be very hard to debug, so we need to
> >make sure we have some really good testing as we make any changes.
> >
> >Not taking the j_state_lock spinlock in jbd2_stop_lock() was relatively
> >easy to prove to be safe, but I'm really worried about
> >start_this_handle() the locking around that is going to be subtle, and
> >it's not just the specific fields in the transaction and journal
> >handle.
> >
> >And even with the jbd2_stop_lock() change, I'd really prefer some
> >pretty exhaustive testing, including power fail testing, just to make
> >sure we're in practice when/if we make more subtle or more invasive
> >changes to the jbd2 layer...
> >
> >So I'm mot waving the red flag, but the yellow flag (as they would say
> >in auto racing circles).
> >
> 
> Your patch did remove the contention on the j_state_lock for dbench
> in my testing with 64 threads.  The contention point now
> moves dcache_lock, which is also another tricky bottleneck.

Nick Piggin's vfs scalability patches takes care of the dcache_lock
contention. I'm actually using them with the -rt patch in my testing
here.


> In our other testing with FFSB that creates/rename/remove a lot of directories,
> we found that journal->j_revoke_lock was also heavily contended.

Yep. This also shows up in my -rt patch testing with Ted's patch.

thanks
-john


--
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