linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] ext4: Coordinate data-only flush requests sent by fsync

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: <4CF449F4.3010303@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:48:52 -0500
From:	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
To:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
CC:	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
	Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, Keith Mannthey <kmannth@...ibm.com>,
	dm-devel@...hat.com, Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] ext4: Coordinate data-only flush requests sent
 by fsync

On 11/29/2010 07:39 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:05:36 -0800 "Darrick J. Wong"<djwong@...ibm.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On certain types of hardware, issuing a write cache flush takes a considerable
>> amount of time.  Typically, these are simple storage systems with write cache
>> enabled and no battery to save that cache after a power failure.  When we
>> encounter a system with many I/O threads that write data and then call fsync
>> after more transactions accumulate, ext4_sync_file performs a data-only flush,
>> the performance of which is suboptimal because each of those threads issues its
>> own flush command to the drive instead of trying to coordinate the flush,
>> thereby wasting execution time.
>>
>> Instead of each fsync call initiating its own flush, there's now a flag to
>> indicate if (0) no flushes are ongoing, (1) we're delaying a short time to
>> collect other fsync threads, or (2) we're actually in-progress on a flush.
>>
>> So, if someone calls ext4_sync_file and no flushes are in progress, the flag
>> shifts from 0->1 and the thread delays for a short time to see if there are any
>> other threads that are close behind in ext4_sync_file.  After that wait, the
>> state transitions to 2 and the flush is issued.  Once that's done, the state
>> goes back to 0 and a completion is signalled.
> I haven't seen any of the preceding discussion do I might be missing
> something important, but this seems needlessly complex and intrusive.
> In particular, I don't like adding code to md to propagate these timings up
> to the fs, and I don't the arbitrary '2ms' number.
>
> Would it not be sufficient to simply gather flushes while a flush is pending.
> i.e
>    - if no flush is pending, set the 'flush pending' flag, submit a flush,
>      then clear the flag.
>    - if a flush is pending, then wait for it to complete, and then submit a
>      single flush on behalf of all pending flushes.
>
> That way when flush is fast, you do a flush every time, and when it is slow
> you gather multiple flushes together.
> I think it would issues a few more flushes than your scheme, but it would be
> a much neater solution.  Have you tried that and found it to be insufficient?
>
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
>

The problem with that is that you can introduce a wait for the next flush longer 
than it would take to complete the flush. Having the wait adjust itself 
according to the speed of the device is much better I think....

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