linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC] performance regression with "ext4: Allow parallel DIO reads"

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:   Fri, 23 Aug 2019 21:08:53 +0800
From:   Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Joseph Qi <jiangqi903@...il.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Xiaoguang Wang <xiaoguang.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Liu Bo <bo.liu@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] performance regression with "ext4: Allow parallel DIO
 reads"



On 19/8/23 18:16, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 03:57:02PM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> On 19/8/22 13:40, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 09:04:57AM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>>> Hi Ted，
>>>>
>>>> On 19/8/21 00:08, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:00:39AM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've tested parallel dio reads with dioread_nolock, it doesn't have
>>>>>> significant performance improvement and still poor compared with reverting
>>>>>> parallel dio reads. IMO, this is because with parallel dio reads, it take
>>>>>> inode shared lock at the very beginning in ext4_direct_IO_read().
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that a problem?  It's a shared lock, so parallel threads should
>>>>> be able to issue reads without getting serialized?
>>>>>
>>>> The above just tells the result that even mounting with dioread_nolock,
>>>> parallel dio reads still has poor performance than before (w/o parallel
>>>> dio reads).
>>>>
>>>>> Are you using sufficiently fast storage devices that you're worried
>>>>> about cache line bouncing of the shared lock?  Or do you have some
>>>>> other concern, such as some other thread taking an exclusive lock?
>>>>>
>>>> The test case is random read/write described in my first mail. And
>>>
>>> Regardless of dioread_nolock, ext4_direct_IO_read() is taking
>>> inode_lock_shared() across the direct IO call.  And writes in ext4
>>> _always_ take the inode_lock() in ext4_file_write_iter(), even
>>> though it gets dropped quite early when overwrite && dioread_nolock
>>> is set.  But just taking the lock exclusively in write fro a short
>>> while is enough to kill all shared locking concurrency...
>>>
>>>> from my preliminary investigation, shared lock consumes more in such
>>>> scenario.
>>>
>>> If the write lock is also shared, then there should not be a
>>> scalability issue. The shared dio locking is only half-done in ext4,
>>> so perhaps comparing your workload against XFS would be an
>>> informative exercise... 
>>
>> I've done the same test workload on xfs, it behaves the same as ext4
>> after reverting parallel dio reads and mounting with dioread_lock.
> 
> Ok, so the problem is not shared locking scalability ('cause that's
> what XFS does and it scaled fine), the problem is almost certainly
> that ext4 is using exclusive locking during writes...
> 

Agree. Maybe I've misled you in my previous mails.I meant shared lock makes worse in case of mixed random read/write, since
we would always take inode lock during write.
And it also conflicts with dioread_nolock. It won't take any inode lock
before with dioread_nolock during read, but now it always takes a shared
lock.

Thanks,
Joseph