linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RF C/T/D] Unmapped page cache control

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: <4B9F5F2F.8020501@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:36:31 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC:	Chris Webb <chris@...chsys.com>, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	KVM development list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kevin Wolf <kwolf@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RF C/T/D] Unmapped page cache control - via boot parameter

On 03/16/2010 12:26 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Avi,
>
> cache=writeback can be faster than cache=none for the same reasons
> a disk cache speeds up access.  As long as the I/O mix contains more
> asynchronous then synchronous writes it allows the host to do much
> more reordering, only limited by the cache size (which can be quite
> huge when using the host pagecache) and the amount of cache flushes
> coming from the host.  If you have a fsync heavy workload or metadata
> operation with a filesystem like the current XFS you will get lots
> of cache flushes that make the use of the additional cache limits.
>    

Are you talking about direct volume access or qcow2?

For direct volume access, I still don't get it.  The number of barriers 
issues by the host must equal (or exceed, but that's pointless) the 
number of barriers issued by the guest.  cache=writeback allows the host 
to reorder writes, but so does cache=none.  Where does the difference 
come from?

Put it another way.  In an unvirtualized environment, if you implement a 
write cache in a storage driver (not device), and sync it on a barrier 
request, would you expect to see a performance improvement?


> If you don't have a of lot of cache flushes, e.g. due to dumb
> applications that do not issue fsync, or even run ext3 in it's default
> mode never issues cache flushes the benefit will be enormous, but the
> data loss and possible corruption will be enormous.
>    

Shouldn't the host never issue cache flushes in this case? (for direct 
volume access; qcow2 still needs flushes for metadata integrity).

> But even for something like btrfs that does provide data integrity
> but issues cache flushes fairly effeciently data=writeback may
> provide a quite nice speedup, especially if using multiple guest
> accessing the same spindle(s).
>
> But I wouldn't be surprised if IBM's exteme differences are indeed due
> to the extremly unsafe ext3 default behaviour.
>    


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/