linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] ext3: per-process soft-syncing data=ordered mode

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]

Message-ID: <20080131171040.GL1461@duck.suse.cz>
Date:	Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:10:40 +0100
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Cc:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>, Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] ext3: per-process soft-syncing data=ordered mode

On Thu 31-01-08 11:56:01, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thursday 31 January 2008, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 30 January 2008, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > > And, a quick test of successive 1sec delayed syncs shows no hangs until
> > > > about 1 minute (~180mb) of db-writeout activity, when the sync abruptly
> > > > hangs for minutes on end, and io-wait shows almost 100%.
> > >
> > > How large is the journal in this filesystem?  You can check via
> > > "debugfs -R 'stat <8>' /dev/XXX".
> >
> > 32mb.
> >
> > > Is this affected by increasing
> > > the journal size?  You can set the journal size via "mke2fs -J size=400"
> > > at format time, or on an unmounted filesystem by running
> > > "tune2fs -O ^has_journal /dev/XXX" then "tune2fs -J size=400 /dev/XXX".
> >
> > Setting size=400 doesn't help, nor does size=4.
> >
> > > I suspect that the stall is caused by the journal filling up, and then
> > > waiting while the entire journal is checkpointed back to the filesystem
> > > before the next transaction can start.
> > >
> > > It is possible to improve this behaviour in JBD by reducing the amount
> > > of space that is cleared if the journal becomes "full", and also doing
> > > journal checkpointing before it becomes full.  While that may reduce
> > > performance a small amount, it would help avoid such huge latency
> > > problems. I believe we have such a patch in one of the Lustre branches
> > > already, and while I'm not sure what kernel it is for the JBD code rarely
> > > changes much....
> >
> > The big difference between ordered and writeback is that once the slowdown
> > starts, ordered goes into ~100% iowait, whereas writeback continues 100%
> > user.
> 
> Does data=ordered write buffers in the order they were dirtied?  This might 
> explain the extreme problems in transactional workloads.
  Well, it does but we submit them to block layer all at once so elevator
should sort the requests for us...

									Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/