linux-ext4 - Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH V15 00/18] block: support multi-page bvec

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: <20190217131332.GC7296@ming.t460p>
Date:   Sun, 17 Feb 2019 21:13:33 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        dm-devel@...hat.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
        Boaz Harrosh <ooo@...ctrozaur.com>,
        Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>, Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>,
        linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
        linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH V15 00/18] block: support multi-page bvec

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:59:47AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2/15/19 10:14 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 08:49 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 2/15/19 4:13 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> >>> This patchset brings multi-page bvec into block layer:
> >>
> >> Applied, thanks Ming. Let's hope it sticks!
> > 
> > Hi Jens and Ming,
> > 
> > Test nvmeof-mp/002 fails with Jens' for-next branch from this morning.
> > I have not yet tried to figure out which patch introduced the failure.
> > Anyway, this is what I see in the kernel log for test nvmeof-mp/002:
> > 
> > [  475.611363] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000020
> > [  475.621188] #PF error: [normal kernel read fault]
> > [  475.623148] PGD 0 P4D 0  
> > [  475.624737] Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN
> > [  475.626628] CPU: 1 PID: 277 Comm: kworker/1:1H Tainted: G    B             5.0.0-rc6-dbg+ #1
> > [  475.630232] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.10.2-1 04/01/2014
> > [  475.633855] Workqueue: kblockd blk_mq_requeue_work
> > [  475.635777] RIP: 0010:__blk_recalc_rq_segments+0xbe/0x590
> > [  475.670948] Call Trace:
> > [  475.693515]  blk_recalc_rq_segments+0x2f/0x50
> > [  475.695081]  blk_insert_cloned_request+0xbb/0x1c0
> > [  475.701142]  dm_mq_queue_rq+0x3d1/0x770
> > [  475.707225]  blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list+0x5fc/0xb10
> > [  475.717137]  blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests+0x256/0x300
> > [  475.721767]  __blk_mq_run_hw_queue+0xd6/0x180
> > [  475.725920]  __blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue+0x25c/0x290
> > [  475.727480]  blk_mq_run_hw_queue+0x119/0x1b0
> > [  475.732019]  blk_mq_run_hw_queues+0x7b/0xa0
> > [  475.733468]  blk_mq_requeue_work+0x2cb/0x300
> > [  475.736473]  process_one_work+0x4f1/0xa40
> > [  475.739424]  worker_thread+0x67/0x5b0
> > [  475.741751]  kthread+0x1cf/0x1f0
> > [  475.746034]  ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30
> > 
> > (gdb) list *(__blk_recalc_rq_segments+0xbe)
> > 0xffffffff816a152e is in __blk_recalc_rq_segments (block/blk-merge.c:366).
> > 361                                                  struct bio *bio)
> > 362     {
> > 363             struct bio_vec bv, bvprv = { NULL };
> > 364             int prev = 0;
> > 365             unsigned int seg_size, nr_phys_segs;
> > 366             unsigned front_seg_size = bio->bi_seg_front_size;
> > 367             struct bio *fbio, *bbio;
> > 368             struct bvec_iter iter;
> > 369
> > 370             if (!bio)
> 
> Just ran a few tests, and it also seems to cause about a 5% regression
> in per-core IOPS throughput. Prior to this work, I could get 1620K 4k
> rand read IOPS out of core, now I'm at ~1535K. The cycler stealer seems
> to be blk_queue_split() and blk_rq_map_sg().

Could you share us your test setting?

I will run null_blk first and see if it can be reproduced.

Thanks,
Ming