| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20230209083449.ibmskbri5noojh4u@quack3>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 09:34:49 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: "Bhatnagar, Rishabh" <risbhat@...zon.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, tytso@....edu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, abuehaze@...zon.com
Subject: Re: EXT4 IOPS degradation between 4.14 and 5.10
On Wed 08-02-23 11:17:21, Bhatnagar, Rishabh wrote:
> > > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > > + * We come here when we got at @end. We take care to not overflow the
> > > > > > > + * index @index as it confuses some of the callers. This breaks the
> > > > > > > + * iteration when there is page at index -1 but that is already broken
> > > > > > > + * anyway.
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > + if (end == (pgoff_t)-1)
> > > > > > > + *index = (pgoff_t)-1;
> > > > > > > + else
> > > > > > > + *index = end + 1;
> > > > > > > +out:
> > > > > > > rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - if (ret)
> > > > > > > - *index = pages[ret - 1]->index + 1;
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From the description of the patch i didn't see any mention of this
> > > > > > > functional change.
> > > > > > > Was this change intentional and did help some usecase or general performance
> > > > > > > improvement?
> > > > > > So the change was intentional. When I was working on the series, I was
> > > > > > somewhat concerned that the old code could end up in a pathological
> > > > > > situation like:
> > > > > > We scan range 0-1000000, find the only dirty page at index 0, return it.
> > > > > > We scan range 1-1000000, find the only dirty page at index 1, return it.
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This way we end up with rather inefficient scanning and in theory malicious
> > > > > > user could livelock writeback like this. That being said this was/is mostly
> > > > > > a theoretical concern.
> > > > > Ok so its more of a security concern. But do you think this has a latency
> > > > > impact? I didn't see
> > > > > much latency impact between the two sets and throughput is higher.
> > > > Yes, I expect there will be latency impact but for this workload probably
> > > > relatively small. I expect the expensive part on your workload is the
> > > > fsync(2) call, in particular the committing of the transaction and the
> > > > flushing of the disk caches as a result of that. Data writes themselves are
> > > > relatively cheap. If you had say 1MB blocks instead of 16k ones, I'd expect
> > > > the numbers to start looking differently as the cost of IO and of cache
> > > > flushing becomes for comparable - obviously it all depends on the details
> > > > of the backing storage as well. Perhaps could you measure how much time we
> > > > spend in file_write_and_wait_range() calls vs in the whole ext4_sync_file()
> > > > call to confirm that?
> > > >
> > > > Overall your tests show we could gain some throughput without sacrificing
> > > > too much latency if we somehow batch tiny fsync requests more. The trick is
> > > > how to do this without regressing other workloads and also across various
> > > > storage types which are going to have very different properties.
> > > Yeah i agree fsync is much more expensive operation than just dirtying
> > > buffers in page cache. I did use the ext4dist tool from bcc to get the
> > > distribution of write vs fsync. Overall fsync is much more expensive
> > > operation so yeah if we can get higher throughput here with batching it
> > > shouldn't impact fsync latency that much.
> > Well, I was more interested in file_write_and_wait_range() vs
> > ext4_sync_file() latency comparison. write(2) calls are indeed very fast
> > because they just copy into the page cache so that is not very interesting.
> > But file_write_and_wait_range() is more interesting because that measures
> > the cost of writing file data to the disk while whole ext4_sync_file()
> > measures the cost of writing file data to the disk + the cost of flushing
> > the journal and I'm interested in how much is the flushing of the journal
> > costly compared to the data writeback.
>
> Sorry i misunderstood your comment. Here is the revised data. Flushing
> journal very heavy compared to flushing data.
>
> ext4_sync_file: ~18.6 msecs
> fdatawrite_range: ~ 4usecs
> fdatawait_range: ~ 83.6usecs
> fc_commit: ~18.6 msecs
>
> Tracing 1 functions for "ext4_sync_file"
>
>
> nsecs : count distribution
> 1048576 -> 2097151 : 75 | |
> 2097152 -> 4194303 : 1496 |**** |
> 4194304 -> 8388607 : 3461 |********** |
> 8388608 -> 16777215 : 6693 |******************** |
> 16777216 -> 33554431 : 13355 |****************************************|
> 33554432 -> 67108863 : 1631 |**** |
>
> avg = 18624922 nsecs, total: 505778389231 nsecs, count: 27156
>
>
> Tracing 1 functions for "__filemap_fdatawrite_range"
>
> nsecs : count distribution
> 512 -> 1023 : 0 | |
> 1024 -> 2047 : 1 |** |
> 2048 -> 4095 : 14 |****************************************|
> 4096 -> 8191 : 5 |************** |
> 8192 -> 16383 : 1 |** |
>
> avg = 3943 nsecs, total: 82809 nsecs, count: 21
>
> Tracing 1 functions for "__filemap_fdatawait_range
>
> nsecs : count distribution
> 128 -> 255 : 0 | |
> 256 -> 511 : 1 |******************** |
> 512 -> 1023 : 2 |****************************************|
> 1024 -> 2047 : 2 |****************************************|
> 2048 -> 4095 : 0 | |
> 4096 -> 8191 : 0 | |
> 8192 -> 16383 : 0 | |
> 16384 -> 32767 : 0 | |
> 32768 -> 65535 : 0 | |
> 65536 -> 131071 : 0 | |
> 131072 -> 262143 : 0 | |
> 262144 -> 524287 : 1 |******************** |
>
> avg = 83644 nsecs, total: 501866 nsecs, count: 6
>
> Tracing 1 functions for "ext4_fc_commit
>
> nsecs : count distribution
> 1048576 -> 2097151 : 70 | |
> 2097152 -> 4194303 : 1512 |**** |
> 4194304 -> 8388607 : 3436 |********** |
> 8388608 -> 16777215 : 6699 |******************** |
> 16777216 -> 33554431 : 13349 |****************************************|
> 33554432 -> 67108863 : 1641 |**** |
>
> avg = 18622010 nsecs, total: 505699318966 nsecs, count: 27156
Thanks for the data! So indeed as I suspected for your storage the
transaction commit (likely due to the flushing of disk caches) costs the
vast majority of time. I guess I'll try to experiment with this a bit if we
can somehow achieve more batching in ext4_sync_file()...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists