linux-kernel - Re: [rfc] direct IO submission and completion scalability issues

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: <47A7579F.2050809@oracle.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:21:19 -0800
From:	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>
To:	David Chinner <dgc@....com>
CC:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	ak@...e.de, jens.axboe@...cle.com, James.Bottomley@...elEye.com,
	andrea@...e.de, clameter@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	andrew.vasquez@...gic.com, willy@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [rfc] direct IO submission and completion scalability issues

[ ugh, still jet lagged. ]

> Hi Nick,
> 
> When Matthew was describing this work at an LCA presentation (not
> sure whether you were at that presentation or not), Zach came up
> with the idea that allowing the submitting application control the
> CPU that the io completion processing was occurring would be a good
> approach to try.  That is, we submit a "completion cookie" with the
> bio that indicates where we want completion to run, rather than
> dictating that completion runs on the submission CPU.
> 
> The reasoning is that only the higher level context really knows
> what is optimal, and that changes from application to application.
> The "complete on the submission CPU" policy _may_ be more optimal
> for database workloads, but it is definitely suboptimal for XFS and
> transaction I/O completion handling because it simply drags a bunch
> of global filesystem state around between all the CPUs running
> completions. In that case, we really only want a single CPU to be
> handling the completions.....
> 
> (Zach - please correct me if I've missed anything)

Yeah, I think Nick's patch (and Jens' approach, presumably) is just the
sort of thing we were hoping for when discussing this during Matthew's talk.

I was imagining the patch a little bit differently (per-cpu tasks, do a
wake_up from the driver instead of cpu nr testing up in blk, work
queues, whatever), but we know how to iron out these kinds of details ;).

> Looking at your patch - if you turn it around so that the
> "submission CPU" field can be specified as the "completion cpu" then
> I think the patch will expose the policy knobs needed to do the
> above.

Yeah, that seems pretty straight forward.

We might need some logic for noticing that the desired cpu has been
hot-plugged away while the IO was in flight, it occurs to me.

- z
--
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/