linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v1 00/16] ext4: Add metadata checksumming

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:	Mon, 5 Sep 2011 11:55:24 -0700
From:	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
To:	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@...il.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@...cle.com>,
	Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>,
	Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Coly Li <colyli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/16] ext4: Add metadata checksumming

On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 06:19:16PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >>>>> "Andi" == Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> writes:
> 
> Andi> Doesn't have any performance numbers.
> 
> It's been a while since I read them. I thought they had some compelling
> numbers. Anyway, made a big difference in real life testing here. For
> sustained I/O we're talking an order of magnitude.
> 
> 
> Andi> You need to keep in mind that PCLMULQDQ uses FPU state, so any
> Andi> speedup for the kernel must be large enough to amortize the cost
> Andi> of saving the FPU state.
> 
> Yeah, my test cases were for bulk database I/O, not for writing a
> handful of fs metadata blocks. Plus for the DB tests the CRC was
> generated in userland.
> 
> I seem to recall Joel picking something other than the hw-accelerated
> CRC32C for ocfs2 metadata and that didn't cause any problems.

Yes, he picked regular CRC32, which has a reasonably fast slice-by-4
software implementation.  For ext4, my original choices were hw acceleration or
the slower single-byte lookup table.  With hw acceleration the overhead of
adding the checksums is about ~10% (for just the metadata operations); with the
single-byte table it was about 50%; and with the proposed slice-by-8 patch it's
about 20%.  Hopefully I can optimize this even more in the future.

> That said, I do see a difference between IP checksum and CRC on normal
> FS workloads with DIX enabled here.

I would hope so, since the IP checksum is much simpler than any CRC...

--D

> Andi> Typically that only works out for quite large buffers, but kernel
> Andi> buffers are relatively small.
> 
> *nod*
> 
> -- 
> Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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