| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20170814082254.GA16353@quack2.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 10:22:54 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Wang Shilong <wangshilong1991@...il.com>
Cc: Wang Shilong <wshilong@....com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Perepechko <anserper@...dex.ru>,
Shuichi Ihara <sihara@....com>, Li Xi <lixi@....com>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: quota: dqio_mutex design
Hello,
On Mon 14-08-17 11:53:37, Wang Shilong wrote:
> Txt format attched.
>
> BTW, Jan, it will be cool if you could point which patch help a lot for
> our test case, since there are a lot of patches there, we want to port
> some of patches to RHEL7.
Thanks for the test results! They are really interesting. Do you have any
explanation why without any patches the '-O quota,project' runs for 'File
Creation' are faster than runs without quota or any other runs in the test?
WRT which patches helped I don't have a good subset for you. In my testing
each patch helped a bit. I expect in your setup the conversion of dqio_sem
to rwsem and then to use dq_lock might not have that big impact. So you
might try backporting patches from "quota: Fix possible corruption of
dqi_flags" onward.
Honza
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Wang Shilong <wshilong@....com> wrote:
> > Hello Jan,
> >
> > We have tested your patches, in generally, it helped in our case. Noticed,
> > our test case is only one user with many process create/remove file.
> >
> >
> > 4.13.0-rc3 without any patches
> > no Quota -O quota' -O quota, project'
> > File Creation File Unlink File Creation File Unlink File Creation File Unlink
> > 0 93,068 296,028 86,860 285,131 85,199 189,653
> > 1 79,501 280,921 91,079 277,349 186,279 170,982
> > 2 79,932 299,750 90,246 274,457 133,922 191,677
> > 3 80,146 297,525 86,416 272,160 192,354 198,869
> >
> > 4.13.0-rc3/w Jan Kara patch
> > no Quota -O quota' -O quota, project'
> > File Creation File Unlink File Creation File Unlink File Creation File Unlink
> > 0 73,057 311,217 74,898 286,120 81,217 288,138 ops/per second
> > 1 78,872 312,471 76,470 277,033 77,014 288,057
> > 2 79,170 291,440 76,174 283,525 73,686 283,526
> > 3 79,941 309,168 78,493 277,331 78,751 281,377
> >
> > 4.13.0-rc3/with https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/799014/
> > no Quota -O quota' -O quota, project'
> > File Creation File Unlink File Creation File Unlink File Creation File Unlink
> > 0 100,319 322,746 87,480 302,579 84,569 218,969
> > 1 728,424 299,808 312,766 293,471 219,198 199,389
> > 2 729,410 300,930 315,590 289,664 218,283 197,871
> > 3 727,555 298,797 316,837 289,108 213,095 213,458
> >
> > 4.13.0-rc3/w https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/799014/ + Jan Kara patch
> > no Quota -O quota' -O quota, project'
> > File Creation File Unlink File Creation File Unlink File Creation File Unlink
> > 0 100,312 324,871 87,076 267,303 86,258 288,137
> > 1 707,524 298,892 361,963 252,493 421,919 282,492
> > 2 707,792 298,162 363,450 264,923 397,723 283,675
> > 3 707,420 302,552 354,013 266,638 421,537 281,763
> >
> >
> > In conclusion, your patches helped a lot for our testing, noticed, please ignored test0 running
> > for creation, the first time testing will loaded inode cache in memory, we used test1-3 to compare.
> >
> > With extra patch applied, your patches improved File creation(quota+project) 2X, File unlink
> > 1.5X.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Shilong
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Jan Kara [jack@...e.cz]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 0:06
> > To: Wang Shilong
> > Cc: Jan Kara; Andrew Perepechko; Shuichi Ihara; Wang Shilong; Li Xi; Ext4 Developers List; linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: quota: dqio_mutex design
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu 03-08-17 22:39:51, Wang Shilong wrote:
> >> Please send me patches, we could test and response you!
> >
> > So I finally have something which isn't obviously wrong (it survives basic
> > testing and gives me improvements for some workloads). I have pushed out
> > the patches to:
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jack/linux-fs.git quota_scaling
> >
> > I'd be happy if you can share your results with my patches. I have not yet
> > figured out a safe way to reduce the contention on dq_lock during update of
> > on-disk structure when lot of processes bang single dquot. I have
> > experimental patch but it didn't bring any benefit in my testing - I'll
> > rebase it on top of other patches I have send it to you for some testing.
> >
> > Honza
> >
> >> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> >> > Hello!
> >> >
> >> > On Thu 03-08-17 19:31:04, Wang Shilong wrote:
> >> >> We DDN is investigating the same issue!
> >> >>
> >> >> Some comments comes:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Andrew Perepechko <anserper@...dex.ru> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue 01-08-17 15:02:42, Jan Kara wrote:
> >> >> >> > Hi Andrew,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I've been experimenting with this today but this idea didn't bring any
> >> >> >> benefit in my testing. Was your setup with multiple users or a single user?
> >> >> >> Could you give some testing to my patches to see whether they bring some
> >> >> >> benefit to you?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Honza
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi Jan!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > My setup was with a single user. Unfortunately, it may take some time before
> >> >> > I can try a patched kernel other than RHEL6 or RHEL7 with the same test,
> >> >> > we have a lot of dependencies on these kernels.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The actual test we ran was mdtest.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > By the way, we had 15+% performance improvement in creates from the
> >> >> > change that was discussed earlier in this thread:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > EXT4_SB(dquot->dq_sb)->s_qf_names[GRPQUOTA]) {
> >> >> > + if (test_bit(DQ_MOD_B, &dquot->dq_flags))
> >> >> > + return 0;
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't think this is right, as far as i understand, journal quota need go
> >> >> together with quota space change update inside same transaction, this will
> >> >> break consistency if power off or RO happen.
> >> >>
> >> >> Here is some ideas that i have thought:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) switch dqio_mutex to a read/write lock, especially, i think most of
> >> >> time journal quota updates is in-place update, that means we don't need
> >> >> change quota tree in memory, firstly try read lock, retry with write lock if
> >> >> there is real tree change.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2)another is similar idea of Andrew's walkaround, but we need make correct
> >> >> fix, maintain dirty list for per transaction, and gurantee quota updates are
> >> >> flushed when commit transaction, this might be complex, i am not very
> >> >> familiar with JBD2 codes.
> >> >>
> >> >> It will be really nice if we could fix this regression, as we see 20% performace
> >> >> regression.
> >> >
> >> > So I have couple of patches:
> >> >
> >> > 1) I convert dqio_mutex do rw semaphore and use it in exclusive mode only
> >> > when quota tree is going to change. We also use dq_lock to serialize writes
> >> > of dquot - you cannot have two writes happening in parallel as that could
> >> > result in stale data being on disk. This patch brings benefit when there
> >> > are multiple users - now they don't contend on common lock. It shows
> >> > advantage in my testing so I plan to merge these patches. When the
> >> > contention is on a structure for single user this change however doesn't
> >> > bring much (the performance change is in statistical noise in my testing).
> >> >
> >> > 2) I have patches to remove some contention on dq_list_lock by not using
> >> > dirty list for tracking dquots in ext4 (and thus avoid dq_list_lock
> >> > completely in quota modification path). This does not bring measurable
> >> > benefit in my testing even on ramdisk but lockstat data for dq_list_lock
> >> > looks much better after this - it seems lock contention just shifted to
> >> > dq_data_lock - I'll try to address that as well and see whether I'll be
> >> > able to measure some advantage.
> >> >
> >> > 3) I have patches to convert dquot dirty bit to sequence counter so that
> >> > in commit_dqblk() we can check whether dquot state we wanted to write is
> >> > already on disk. Note that this is different from Andrew's approach in that
> >> > we do wait for dquot to be actually written before returning. We just don't
> >> > repeat the write unnecessarily. However this didn't bring any measurable
> >> > benefit in my testing so unless I'll be able to confirm it benefits some
> >> > workloads I won't merge this change.
> >> >
> >> > If you can experiment with your workloads, I can send you patches. I'd be
> >> > keen on having some performance data from real setups...
> >> >
> >> > Honza
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> Shilong
> >> >>
> >> >> > dquot_mark_dquot_dirty(dquot);
> >> >> > return ext4_write_dquot(dquot);
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The idea was that if we know that some thread is somewhere between
> >> >> > mark_dirty and clear_dirty, then we can avoid blocking on dqio_mutex,
> >> >> > since that thread will update the ondisk dquot for us.
> >> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
> >> > SUSE Labs, CR
> > --
> > Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
> > SUSE Labs, CR
> 4.13.0-rc3 without any patches
> no Quota -O quota -O quota,project
> creation unlink creation unlink creation unlink
> 0 93,068 296,028 86,860 285,131 85,199 189,653 ops/per second
> 1 79,501 280,921 91,079 277,349 186,279 170,982
> 2 79,932 299,750 90,246 274,457 133,922 191,677
> 3 80,146 297,525 86,416 272,160 192,354 198,869
>
> Jan Kara branch (quota_scaling)
> no Quota -O quota -O quota,project
> creation unlink creation unlink creation unlink
> 0 73,057 311,217 74,898 286,120 81,217 288,138
> 1 78,872 312,471 76,470 277,033 77,014 288,057
> 2 79,170 291,440 76,174 283,525 73,686 283,526
> 3 79,941 309,168 78,493 277,331 78,751 281,377
>
> 4.13.0-rc3 with v5 patch https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/799014/
> no Quota -O quota -O quota,project
> creation unlink creation unlink creation unlink
> 0 100,319 322,746 87,480 302,579 84,569 218,969
> 1 728,424 299,808 312,766 293,471 219,198 199,389
> 2 729,410 300,930 315,590 289,664 218,283 197,871
> 3 727,555 298,797 316,837 289,108 213,095 213,458
>
> Jan Kara branch (quota_scaling) with v5 patch https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/799014/
> no Quota -O quota -O quota,project
> creation unlink creation unlink creation unlink
> 0 100,312 324,871 87,076 267,303 86,258 288,137
> 1 707,524 298,892 361,963 252,493 421,919 282,492
> 2 707,792 298,162 363,450 264,923 397,723 283,675
> 3 707,420 302,552 354,013 266,638 421,537 281,763
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists