linux-kernel - Re: disk/crypto performance regression 2.6.31 -> 2.6.32 (mmap problem?)

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, 23 Feb 2010 21:25:30 -0500
From:	James Cloos <cloos@...loos.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@....pp.se>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: disk/crypto performance regression 2.6.31 -> 2.6.32 (mmap problem?)

M> You're right, it doesn't say that anymore in 2.6.31, so I think I'm 
M> indeed running with barriers on.

When barriers were added to ext4, I saw a similar slowdown on lock- and
sync- heavy workloads.

Based on a recent thread on the ext4 list I've started using deadline
rather than cfq on that disk.  There are some slowdowns on that disk's
other partition, but the overall throughput is significantly better than
using the combination of cfq, ext4 and barriers.

You might want to test out deadline and/or noop.

Cf:  /sys/block/*/queue/scheduler

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@...loos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
--
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/