linux-ext4 - Re: Append and fsync performance in ext4 DAX

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CADb0YNkZeWfSMo5T8=cBDO4+mCagDQibpaqVdenuAHkaZX+fzg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 29 Apr 2018 17:13:58 +0000
From:   Rohan Kadekodi <kadekodirohan@...il.com>
To:     tytso@....edu
Cc:     Vijay Chidambaram <vvijay03@...il.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        aasheesh kolli <aasheesh.kolli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Append and fsync performance in ext4 DAX

Hi Ted,

Thanks a lot for your help. For workload #1, indeed, the number of
transactions being captured in jdb2 are significantly more than workload
#2. Also, the fdatasync() instead of fsync() does help in reducing the time
for workload #1.

Thanks,
Rohan

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 at 12:12, Rohan Kadekodi <kadekodirohan@...il.com>
wrote:

> Hi Ted,

> Thanks a lot for your help. For workload #1, indeed, the number of
transactions being captured in jdb2 are significantly more than workload
#2. Also, the fdatasync() instead of fsync() does help in reducing the time
for workload #1.

> Thanks,
> Rohan

> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 at 20:20, Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:

>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:24:32AM -0500, Vijay Chidambaram wrote:
>> >
>> > While we expect workload 1 to take more time than workload 2 since it
>> > is extending the file, 10x higher time seems suspicious. If we remove
>> > the fsync in workload 1, the running time drops to 3s. If we remove
>> > the fsync in workload 2, the running time is around the same (1.5s).

>> Can you mount the file system; run workload #N, and then once it's
>> done, capture the output of /dev/fs/jbd2/<dev>-8/info, which should
>> look like this:

>> % cat /proc/fs/jbd2/dm-1-8/info
>> 498438 transactions (498366 requested), each up to 65536 blocks
>> average:
>>    0ms waiting for transaction
>>    0ms request delay
>>    470ms running transaction
>>    0ms transaction was being locked
>>    0ms flushing data (in ordered mode)
>>    0ms logging transaction
>>    2522us average transaction commit time
>>    161 handles per transaction
>>    14 blocks per transaction
>>    15 logged blocks per transaction

>> It would be interesting to see this for workload #1 and workload #2.

>> I will note that if you were using fdatasync(2) instead of fsync(2)
>> for workload #2, there wouldn't be any journal transactions needed by
>> the overwrites, and the speed up would be quite expecgted.

>> It might be that in the overwrite case, especially if you are using
>> 128 byte inodes such that the mtime timestamp has only one second
>> granularity, that simply there isn't a need to do many journal
>> transactions.

>> So you might want to try a workload #3, where the fsync(2) is replaced
>> by fdatasync(2), and measure the wall clock time and get the jbd2 info
>> information as well.

>> Cheers,

>>                                          - Ted