linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Ext3 latency fixes

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:	Thu, 9 Apr 2009 08:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
cc:	Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Ext3 latency fixes

On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 
> One of these patches fixes a performance regression caused by a64c8610,
> which unplugged the write queue after every page write.  Now that Jens
> added WRITE_SYNC_PLUG.the patch causes us to use it instead of
> WRITE_SYNC, to avoid the implicit unplugging.  These patches also seem
> to further improbve ext3 latency, especially during the "sync" command
> in Linus's write-big-file-and-sync workload.

So here's a question and a untested _conceptual_ patch. 

The kind of writeback mode I'd personally prefer would be more of a 
mixture of the current "data=writeback" and "data=ordered" modes, with 
something of the best of both worlds. I'd like the data writeback to get 
_started_ when the journal is written to disk, but I'd like it to not 
block journal updates.

IOW, it wouldn't be "strictly ordered", but at the same time it wouldn't 
be totally unordered either.

For true sync operations (ie fsync()), the VFS layer then does the proper 
"wait for data" part.

I dunno. I don't actually know the JBD internal constraints, but what I'm 
talking about is something like the appended patch. It wouldn't help under 
really heavy writeback IO (because even if we don't end up waiting for all 
the random data to complete, we'd end up waiting when _submitting_ it), 
but it might help under somewhat less extreme loads.

This is totally untested. It might well violate some serious internal jbd 
rules and eat your filesystem, for all I know. I'm throwing the patch out 
as a "would something _like_ this perhaps make sense as a half-way-point 
between 'ordered' and 'writeback', nothing more.

Hmm?

		Linus
---
 fs/jbd/commit.c |   11 ++++++++++-
 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/jbd/commit.c b/fs/jbd/commit.c
index a8e8513..5bea3ed 100644
--- a/fs/jbd/commit.c
+++ b/fs/jbd/commit.c
@@ -184,6 +184,9 @@ static void journal_do_submit_data(struct buffer_head **wbuf, int bufs,
 	}
 }

+/* This would obviously be a real flag, set at mount time */
+#define BACKGROUND_DATA(journal) (1)
+
 /*
  *  Submit all the data buffers to disk
  */
@@ -198,6 +201,9 @@ static int journal_submit_data_buffers(journal_t *journal,
 	struct buffer_head **wbuf = journal->j_wbuf;
 	int err = 0;

+	if (BACKGROUND_DATA(journal))
+		write_op = WRITE;
+
 	/*
 	 * Whenever we unlock the journal and sleep, things can get added
 	 * onto ->t_sync_datalist, so we have to keep looping back to
@@ -254,7 +260,10 @@ write_out_data:
 		if (locked && test_clear_buffer_dirty(bh)) {
 			BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "needs writeout, adding to array");
 			wbuf[bufs++] = bh;
-			__journal_file_buffer(jh, commit_transaction,
+			if (BACKGROUND_DATA(journal))
+				__journal_unfile_buffer(jh);
+			else
+				__journal_file_buffer(jh, commit_transaction,
 						BJ_Locked);
 			jbd_unlock_bh_state(bh);
 			if (bufs == journal->j_wbufsize) {
--
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/