| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 18:57:56 +0800
From: Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>, jack@...e.cz,
tytso@....edu, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Cc: david@...morbit.com, hch@...radead.org, adilger@...ger.ca,
mbobrowski@...browski.org, rgoldwyn@...e.de
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] ext4: Improve locking sequence in DIO write path
On 19/9/18 18:03, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> Hello Joseph,
>
> First of all thanks a lot for collecting a thorough
> performance numbers.
>
> On 9/18/19 12:05 PM, Joseph Qi wrote:
>> Hi Ritesh,
>>
>> On 19/9/17 18:32, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> This patch series is based on the upstream discussion with Jan
>>> & Joseph @ [1].
>>> It is based on top of Matthew's v3 ext4 iomap patch series [2]
>>>
>>> Patch-1: Adds the ext4_ilock/unlock APIs and also replaces all
>>> inode_lock/unlock instances from fs/ext4/*
>>>
>>> For now I already accounted for trylock/lock issue symantics
>>> (which was discussed here [3]) in the same patch,
>>> since the this whole patch was around inode_lock/unlock API,
>>> so I thought it will be best to address that issue in the same patch.
>>> However, kindly let me know if otherwise.
>>>
>>> Patch-2: Commit msg of this patch describes in detail about
>>> what it is doing.
>>> In brief - we try to first take the shared lock (instead of exclusive
>>> lock), unless it is a unaligned_io or extend_io. Then in
>>> ext4_dio_write_checks(), if we start with shared lock, we see
>>> if we can really continue with shared lock or not. If not, then
>>> we release the shared lock then acquire exclusive lock
>>> and restart ext4_dio_write_checks().
>>>
>>>
>>> Tested against few xfstests (with dioread_nolock mount option),
>>> those ran fine (ext4 & generic).
>>>
>>> I tried testing performance numbers on my VM (since I could not get
>>> hold of any real h/w based test device). I could test the fact
>>> that earlier we were trying to do downgrade_write() lock, but with
>>> this patch, that path is now avoided for fio test case
>>> (as reported by Joseph in [4]).
>>> But for the actual results, I am not sure if VM machine testing could
>>> really give the reliable perf numbers which we want to take a look at.
>>> Though I do observe some form of perf improvements, but I could not
>>> get any reliable numbers (not even with the same list of with/without
>>> patches with which Joseph posted his numbers [1]).
>>>
>>>
>>> @Joseph,
>>> Would it be possible for you to give your test case a run with this
>>> patches? That will be really helpful.
>>>
>>> Branch for this is hosted at below tree.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/riteshharjani/linux/tree/ext4-ilock-RFC
>>>
>> I've tested your branch, the result is:
>> mounting with dioread_nolock, it behaves the same like reverting
>> parallel dio reads + dioread_nolock;
>
> Good sign, means that patch is doing what it is supposed to do.
>
>
>> while mounting without dioread_nolock, no improvement, or even worse.
>> Please refer the test data below.
> Actually without dioread_nolock, we take the restart path.
> i.e. initially we start with SHARED_LOCK, but if dioread_nolock
> is not enabled (or check some other conditions like overwrite),
> we release the shared lock and re-acquire the EXCL lock.
>
>
> But as an optimization, I added the below diff just now
> to directly first check for ext4_should_dioread_nolock too
> before taking the shared lock.
>
> I think with this we should not see any performance regression
> (even without dioread_nolock mount option).
> Since it will directly start with exclusive lock
> if dioread_nolock mount option is not enabled.
>
> I have updated the tree with this diff in same branch.
>
>
> ext4_dio_file_write_iter ()
> <...>
>
> 498 if (iolock == EXT4_IOLOCK_SHARED && !ext4_should_dioread_nolock(inode))
> 499 iolock = EXT4_IOLOCK_EXCL;
> 500
> <...>
>
>
>>
>> fio -name=parallel_dio_reads_test -filename=/mnt/nvme0n1/testfile
>> -direct=1 -iodepth=1 -thread -rw=randrw -ioengine=psync -bs=$bs
>> -size=20G -numjobs=8 -runtime=600 -group_reporting
>>
>> w/ = with parallel dio reads
>> w/o = reverting parallel dio reads
>> w/o+ = reverting parallel dio reads + dioread_nolock
>> ilock = ext4-ilock-RFC
>> ilock+ = ext4-ilock-RFC + dioread_nolock
>
> I will request to kindly also add "w/ + dioread_nolock" in your list.
>
I've done this test before, it still behaves poor.
You can refer the previous RFC thread:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ext4/msg67066.html
Thanks,
Joseph
>
> "w/ + dioread_nolock" v/s "ilock+" - should show some improvements.
> "w/ " v/s "ilock" - should not show any regression.
>
> But thanks for the exhaustive performance numbers you collected.
>
>
> -ritesh
>
>
>>
>> bs=4k:
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> | READ | WRITE |
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> w/ | 30898KB/s,7724,555.00us | 30875KB/s,7718,479.70us |
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> w/o | 117915KB/s,29478,248.18us | 117854KB/s,29463,21.91us |
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> w/o+ | 123450KB/s,30862,245.77us | 123368KB/s,30841,12.14us |
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ilock | 29964KB/s,7491,326.70us | 29940KB/s,7485,740.62us |
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ilock+| 123685KB/s,30921,245.52us | 123601KB/s,30900,12.11us |
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> bs=16k:
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> | READ | WRITE |
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> w/ | 58961KB/s,3685,835.28us | 58877KB/s,3679,1335.98us |
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> w/o | 218409KB/s,13650,554.46us | 218257KB/s,13641,29.22us |
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> w/o+ | 222477KB/s,13904,552.94us | 222322KB/s,13895,20.28us |
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ilock | 56039KB/s,3502,632.96us | 55943KB/s,3496,1652.72us |
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ilock+| 222747KB/s,13921,552.57us | 222592KB/s,13912,20.31us |
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> bs=64k
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> | READ | WRITE |
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> w/ | 119396KB/s,1865,1759.38us | 119159KB/s,1861,2532.26us |
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> w/o | 422815KB/s,6606,1146.05us | 421619KB/s,6587,60.72us |
>> --------------------------------------------,-------------------
>> w/o+ | 427406KB/s,6678,1141.52us | 426197KB/s,6659,52.79us |
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> ilock | 105800KB/s,1653,1451.68us | 105721KB/s,1651,3388.64us |
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> ilock+| 427678KB/s,6682,1142.13us | 426468KB/s,6663,52.31us |
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> bs=512k
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> | READ | WRITE |
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> w/ | 392973KB/s,767,5046.35us | 393165KB/s,767,5359.86us |
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> w/o | 590266KB/s,1152,4312.01us | 590554KB/s,1153,2606.82us |
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> w/o+ | 618752KB/s,1208,4125.82us | 619054KB/s,1209,2487.90us |
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> ilock | 296239KB/s,578,4703.10us | 296384KB/s,578,9049.32us |
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> ilock+| 616636KB/s,1204,4143.38us | 616937KB/s,1204,2490.08us |
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> bs=1M
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> | READ | WRITE |
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> w/ | 487779KB/s,476,8058.55us | 485592KB/s,474,8630.51us |
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> w/o | 593927KB/s,580,7623.63us | 591265KB/s,577,6163.42us |
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> w/o+ | 615011KB/s,600,7399.93us | 612255KB/s,597,5936.61us |
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> ilock | 394762KB/s,385,7097.55us | 392993KB/s,383,13626.98us |
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> ilock+| 626183KB/s,611,7319.16us | 623377KB/s,608,5773.24us |
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joseph
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists