linux-kernel - Re: Swappiness vs. mmap() and interactive response

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, 28 Apr 2009 08:08:18 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Elladan <elladan@...imo.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Swappiness vs. mmap() and interactive response

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 05:09:16PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> The semi-drop-behind is a great idea for the desktop - to put just
> accessed pages to end of LRU. However I'm still afraid it vastly
> changes the caching behavior and wont work well as expected in server
> workloads - shall we verify this?
> 
> Back to this big-cp-hurts-responsibility issue. Background write
> requests can easily pass the io scheduler's obstacles and fill up
> the disk queue. Now every read request will have to wait 10+ writes
> - leading to 10x slow down of major page faults.
> 
> I reach this conclusion based on recent CFQ code reviews. Will bring up
> a queue depth limiting patch for more exercises..

We can muck with the I/O scheduler, but another thing to consider is
whether the VM should be more aggressively throttling writes in this
case; it sounds like the big cp in this case may be dirtying pages so
aggressively that it's driving other (more useful) pages out of the
page cache --- if the target disk is slower than the source disk (for
example, backing up a SATA primary disk to a USB-attached backup disk)
no amount of drop-behind is going to help the situation.

So that leaves three areas for exploration:

* Write-throttling
* Drop-behind
* background writes pushing aside foreground reads

Hmm, note that although the original bug reporter is running Ubuntu
Jaunty, and hence 2.6.28, this problem is going to get *worse* with
2.6.30, since we have the ext3 data=ordered latency fixes which will
write out the any journal activity, and worse, any synchornous commits
(i.e., caused by fsync) will force out all of the dirty pages with
WRITE_SYNC priority.  So with a heavy load, I suspect this is going to
be more of a VM issue, and especially figuring out how to tune more
aggressive write-throttling may be key here.

					- Ted
--
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/