linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Optimize lock in queue unplugging

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]

Date:	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:05:13 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mike Anderson <andmike@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Alasdair Graeme Kergon <agk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize lock in queue unplugging

On Tue, Apr 29 2008, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, Apr 29 2008, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >>Hi
> >>
> >>Mike Anderson was doing an OLTP benchmark on a computer with 48 physical
> >>disks mapped to one logical device via device mapper.
> >>
> >>He found that there was a slowdown on request_queue->lock in function
> >>generic_unplug_device. The slowdown is caused by the fact that when some
> >>code calls unplug on the device mapper, device mapper calls unplug on all
> >>physical disks. These unplug calls take the lock, find that the queue is
> >>already unplugged, release the lock and exit.
> >>
> >>With the below patch, performance of the benchmark was increased by 18%
> >>(the whole OLTP application, not just block layer microbenchmarks).
> >>
> >>So I'm submitting this patch for upstream. I think the patch is correct,
> >>because when more threads call simultaneously plug and unplug, it is
> >>unspecified, if the queue is or isn't plugged (so the patch can't make
> >>this worse). And the caller that plugged the queue should unplug it
> >>anyway. (if it doesn't, there's 3ms timeout).
> >
> >Where were these unplug calls coming from? The block layer will
> >generally only unplug when it is already unplugged, so if you are seeing
> >so many unplug calls that the patch redues overhead by as much
> >described, perhaps the callsite is buggy?
> >
> >-- 
> >Jens Axboe
> 
> unplug is called on any wait_on_buffer (and similar calls) 
> __wait_on_buffer -> sync_buffer -> blk_run_address_space -> 
> blk_run_backing_dev -> bdi->unplug_io_fn(bdi, page);
> 
> (I'm not sure that this was the IBM's case, I'm just guessing - this is 
> the most obvious example where unplug is called repeatedly)
> 
> 
> There is not any test that the queue is plugged and there shouldn't be. If 
> you have this situation
> 
> dm-linear(unplugged) -> physical-disk(plugged)
> 
> then uplung should be called on dm-linear (that will call dm-unplug method 
> dm_unplug_all and that will unplug the disk). If you add the test of 
> plugged queue to the upper layer, you mess this situation with stacked 
> drivers completely.
> 
> The test for already plugged queue should be at the lowest physical device 
> driver, not in upper layers.

Fair enough, I'll put the patch under closer scrutiny and queue it up.
Thanks!

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/