linux-kernel - Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests

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: <20090908175400.GE15974@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 8 Sep 2009 13:54:00 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Nauman Rafique <nauman@...gle.com>,
	Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@...hat.com, jens.axboe@...cle.com, agk@...hat.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com,
	jmoyer@...hat.com, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests

On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 12:47:33PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Nauman Rafique wrote:
>
>> I think this is probably the key deal breaker. dm-ioband has no
>> mechanism to anticipate or idle for a reader task. Without such a
>> mechanism, a proportional division scheme cannot work for tasks doing
>> reads. 
>
> That is a really big issue, since most reads tend to be synchronous
> (the application is waiting for the read), while many writes are not
> (the application is doing something else while the data is written).
>
> Having writes take precedence over reads will really screw over the
> readers, while not benefitting the writers all that much.
>

I ran a test to show how readers can be starved in certain cases. I launched
one reader and three writers. I ran this test twice. First without dm-ioband
and then with dm-ioband.

Following are few lines from the script to launch readers and writers.

**************************************************************
sync
echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches

# Launch writers on sdd2
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/sdd2/writezerofile1 bs=4K count=262144 &

# Launch  writers on sdd1
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/sdd1/writezerofile1 bs=4K count=262144 &
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/sdd1/writezerofile2 bs=4K count=262144 &

echo "sleeping for 5 seconds"
sleep 5

# launch reader on sdd1
time dd if=/mnt/sdd1/testzerofile1 of=/dev/zero &
echo "launched reader $!"
*********************************************************************

Without dm-ioband, reader finished in roughly 5 seconds.

289533952 bytes (290 MB) copied, 5.16765 s, 56.0 MB/s
real	0m5.300s
user	0m0.098s
sys	0m0.492s

With dm-ioband, reader took, more than 2 minutes to finish.

289533952 bytes (290 MB) copied, 122.386 s, 2.4 MB/s

real	2m2.569s
user	0m0.107s
sys	0m0.548s

I had created ioband1 on /dev/sdd1 and ioband2 on /dev/sdd2 with weights
200 and 100 respectively.

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/