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  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:   Tue, 10 May 2022 09:32:13 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v6 00/21] DEPT(Dependency Tracker)

On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 06:28:17PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Oh, one other problem with DEPT --- it's SLOW --- the overhead is
> enormous.  Using kvm-xfstests[1] running "kvm-xfstests smoke", here
> are some sample times:

Yes, right. DEPT has never been optimized. It rather turns on
because of porting issue. I have no choice but to rely on those to
develop DEPT out of tree. Of course, that's what I don't like.

Plus, for now, I'm focusing on removing false positives. Once it's
considered settled down, I will work on performance optimizaition. But
it should still keep relying on Lockdep CONFIGs and adding additional
overhead on it until DEPT can be developed in the tree.

> Time to first test	49 seconds	602 seconds
> ext4/001      		2 s		22 s
> ext4/003		2 s		8 s
> ext4/005		0 s		7 s
> ext4/020		1 s		8 s
> ext4/021		11 s		17 s
> ext4/023		0 s		83 s
> generic/001		4 s		76 s
> generic/002		0 s		11 s
> generic/003		10 s		19 s
> There are some large variations; in some cases, some xfstests take 10x
> as much time or more to run.  In fact, when I first started the
> kvm-xfstests run with DEPT, I thought something had hung and that
> tests would never start.  (In fact, with gce-xfstests the default
> watchdog "something has gone terribly wrong with the kexec" had fired,
> and I didn't get any test results using gce-xfstests at all.  If DEPT
> goes in without any optimizations, I'm going to have to adjust the
> watchdogs timers for gce-xfstests.)

Thank you for informing it. I will go for the optimization as well.

> The bottom line is that at the moment, between the false positives,
> and the significant overhead imposed by DEPT, I would suggest that if
> DEPT ever does go in, that it should be possible to disable DEPT and
> only use the existing CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING version of LOCKDEP, just
> because DEPT is S - L - O - W.
> [1]
> 						- Ted
> P.S.  Darrick and I both have disabled using LOCKDEP by default
> because it slows down ext4 -g auto testing by a factor 2, and xfs -g
> auto testing by a factor of 3.  So the fact that DEPT is a factor of
> 2x to 10x or more slower than LOCKDEP when running various xfstests
> tests should be a real concern.

DEPT is tracking way more objects than Lockdep so it's inevitable to be
slower, but let me try to make it have the similar performance to


Powered by blists - more mailing lists