linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH, RFC] Don't do page stablization if !CONFIG_BLKDEV

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: <20120309081113.GU5091@dastard>
Date:	Fri, 9 Mar 2012 19:11:13 +1100
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
	Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Don't do page stablization if
 !CONFIG_BLKDEV_INTEGRITY

On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 04:20:54PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 04:12:21PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 03:42:52PM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > > 
> > > So now we're back to figuring out how to tell how long I/O will take?
> > > If writeback is issuing random access I/Os to spinning media, you can
> > > bet it might be a while.  Today, you could lower nr_requests to some
> > > obscenely small number to improve worst-case latency.  I thought there
> > > was some talk about improving the intelligence of writeback in this
> > > regard, but it's a tough problem, especially given that writeback isn't
> > > the only cook in the kitchen.
> > 
> > ... and it gets worse if there is any kind of I/O prioritization going
> > on via ionice(), or (as was the case in our example) I/O cgroups were
> > being used to provide proportional I/O rate controls.  I don't think
> > it's realistic to assume the writeback code can predict how long I/O
> > will take when it does a submission.
> 
> cgroups do make it much harder because it could be a simple IO priority
> inversion.  The latencies are just going to be a fact of life for now
> and the best choice is to skip the stable pages.

They have always been a fact of life - just ask anyone that has to
deal with deterministic or "real-time" IO applications.

Unpredictable IO path latencies are not a new problem, and it
doesn't take stable pages to cause sigificant holdoffs in the
writing to a file.  For example: writeback triggers triggers delayed
allocation, which locks the extent map and then blocks behind an
allocation already in progress or has to do IO to read in freespace
metadata. The next write comes along from another thread/process and
it has to map a new page and that now blocks on the extent map lock
and won't progress until the delayed allocation in progress
completes....

IO latencies are pretty much unavoidable, so the best thing to do is
to write applications that care about latency to minimise it's
impact as much as possible. Simple techniques like double buffering
and async IO dispatch techniques to decouple the IO stream from the
process/threads that are doing real work are the usual ways of
dealing with this problem.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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