| 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: <bug-217965-13602-Nv8wItrWv8@https.bugzilla.kernel.org/>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 08:22:03 +0000
From: bugzilla-daemon@...nel.org
To: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [Bug 217965] ext4(?) regression since 6.5.0 on sata hdd
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217965
--- Comment #22 from Eyal Lebedinsky (bugzilla@...l.emu.id.au) ---
I now ran a test on 6.4.15. I copied a segment of the tree I have issues with.
7.2GB in 77,972 files.
It took just over 9 minutes to sync the drain the dirty cache, and the array
run like this
(I am watching the kB_wrtn/s column):
Device tps kB_read/s kB_wrtn/s kB_dscd/s
kB_read kB_wrtn kB_dscd
18:15:01 md127 423.00 4.00 7001.20 0.00
40 70012 0
18:15:11 md127 112.30 14.80 9689.60 0.00
148 96896 0
18:15:21 md127 28.70 3.60 964.80 0.00
36 9648 0
18:15:31 md127 321.90 4.00 1340.40 0.00
40 13404 0
18:15:41 md127 18.20 0.00 123.20 0.00
0 1232 0
18:15:51 md127 26.80 10.00 2062.00 0.00
100 20620 0
18:16:01 md127 2.60 0.00 56.40 0.00
0 564 0
18:16:11 md127 2.80 0.00 82.40 0.00
0 824 0
18:16:21 md127 6.10 0.00 150.80 0.00
0 1508 0
18:16:31 md127 86.00 16.80 4978.00 0.00
168 49780 0
18:16:41 md127 48.90 10.80 4505.60 0.00
108 45056 0
18:16:51 md127 36.10 6.80 1498.00 0.00
68 14980 0
18:17:01 md127 3.20 0.40 64.40 0.00
4 644 0
18:17:11 md127 3.40 0.80 84.80 0.00
8 848 0
18:17:21 md127 3.70 0.80 283.60 0.00
8 2836 0
18:17:31 md127 32.90 6.00 1950.00 0.00
60 19500 0
18:17:41 md127 907.50 24.00 15638.40 0.00
240 156384 0
18:17:51 md127 698.00 9.60 10476.40 0.00
96 104764 0
18:18:01 md127 146.80 0.40 4796.00 0.00
4 47960 0
18:18:11 md127 163.00 0.80 1328.80 0.00
8 13288 0
18:18:21 md127 149.50 1.20 1140.00 0.00
12 11400 0
18:18:31 md127 46.50 1.60 545.20 0.00
16 5452 0
18:18:41 md127 335.90 14.40 9770.00 0.00
144 97700 0
18:18:51 md127 119.90 4.40 3868.80 0.00
44 38688 0
18:19:01 md127 315.70 25.60 11422.80 0.00
256 114228 0
18:19:11 md127 285.80 1.20 4142.40 0.00
12 41424 0
18:19:21 md127 239.00 4.40 3888.00 0.00
44 38880 0
18:19:31 md127 116.30 1.20 1752.80 0.00
12 17528 0
18:19:41 md127 166.60 8.00 8886.00 0.00
80 88860 0
18:19:51 md127 357.20 5.60 6146.80 0.00
56 61468 0
18:20:01 md127 118.10 1.20 1670.40 0.00
12 16704 0
18:20:11 md127 66.00 6.40 802.80 0.00
64 8028 0
18:20:21 md127 139.40 4.40 1641.20 0.00
44 16412 0
18:20:31 md127 44.40 2.40 632.40 0.00
24 6324 0
18:20:41 md127 183.50 13.60 4048.40 0.00
136 40484 0
18:20:51 md127 114.40 28.40 8346.40 0.00
284 83464 0
18:21:01 md127 152.20 27.20 15576.00 0.00
272 155760 0
18:21:11 md127 75.30 1.60 1146.40 0.00
16 11464 0
18:21:21 md127 236.20 18.40 13491.20 0.00
184 134912 0
18:21:31 md127 226.70 3.60 3237.60 0.00
36 32376 0
18:21:41 md127 152.70 4.00 2048.00 0.00
40 20480 0
18:21:51 md127 92.10 7.60 1907.20 0.00
76 19072 0
18:22:01 md127 142.50 8.00 1921.60 0.00
80 19216 0
18:22:11 md127 137.30 5.60 2307.60 0.00
56 23076 0
18:22:21 md127 124.10 6.00 1511.20 0.00
60 15112 0
18:22:31 md127 105.90 4.00 1888.80 0.00
40 18888 0
18:22:41 md127 166.30 2.00 2073.20 0.00
20 20732 0
18:22:51 md127 649.90 6.80 10615.20 0.00
68 106152 0
18:23:01 md127 1253.70 8.80 175698.40 0.00
88 1756984 0
18:23:11 md127 88.40 2.00 66840.40 0.00
20 668404 0
18:23:21 md127 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0 0
Is writing at a few MB/s reasonable for an array with disks that can top
200MB/s?
Note the burst at the end when a significant chunk of the data was written out.
Now running on 6.5.10 I see a very different story:
Device tps kB_read/s kB_wrtn/s kB_dscd/s
kB_read kB_wrtn kB_dscd
18:45:53 md127 2.60 0.00 10.40 0.00
0 104 0
18:46:03 md127 5.40 0.00 21.60 0.00
0 216 0
18:46:13 md127 5.40 0.00 21.60 0.00
0 216 0
18:46:23 md127 5.30 0.00 21.60 0.00
0 216 0
18:46:33 md127 5.20 0.00 20.80 0.00
0 208 0
18:46:43 md127 5.30 0.00 23.60 0.00
0 236 0
18:46:53 md127 5.10 0.00 44.00 0.00
0 440 0
18:47:03 md127 2.70 0.00 21.60 0.00
0 216 0
18:47:13 md127 5.30 0.00 26.80 0.00
0 268 0
18:47:23 md127 5.40 0.00 25.20 0.00
0 252 0
18:47:33 md127 5.20 0.00 21.60 0.00
0 216 0
18:47:43 md127 5.30 0.00 21.20 0.00
0 212 0
18:47:53 md127 5.30 0.00 22.40 0.00
0 224 0
18:48:03 md127 5.40 0.00 24.00 0.00
0 240 0
18:48:13 md127 2.60 0.00 11.20 0.00
0 112 0
18:48:23 md127 5.30 0.00 22.40 0.00
0 224 0
18:48:33 md127 5.30 0.00 23.20 0.00
0 232 0
18:48:43 md127 5.20 0.00 24.40 0.00
0 244 0
18:48:53 md127 5.30 0.00 22.00 0.00
0 220 0
18:49:03 md127 6.20 3.60 23.20 0.00
36 232 0
18:49:13 md127 3.40 0.00 20.80 0.00
0 208 0
18:49:23 md127 5.20 0.00 20.80 0.00
0 208 0
18:49:33 md127 5.30 0.00 22.00 0.00
0 220 0
18:49:43 md127 5.30 0.00 21.60 0.00
0 216 0
18:49:53 md127 5.20 0.00 33.20 0.00
0 332 0
I expect this to take much longer to complete, possibly hours (20% drained in
the last 30m).
In both cases the flusher thread was running at 100%CPU.
I do have the full logs though.
HTH
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists