linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/2] deactive invalidated pages

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: <20101122234257.f14bad44.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:42:57 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] deactive invalidated pages

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:40:03 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> wrote:

> Hi KOSAKI,
> 
> 2010/11/23 KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>:
> >> By Other approach, app developer uses POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED.
> >> But it has a problem. If kernel meets page is writing
> >> during invalidate_mapping_pages, it can't work.
> >> It is very hard for application programmer to use it.
> >> Because they always have to sync data before calling
> >> fadivse(..POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED) to make sure the pages could
> >> be discardable. At last, they can't use deferred write of kernel
> >> so that they could see performance loss.
> >> (http://insights.oetiker.ch/linux/fadvise.html)
> >
> > If rsync use the above url patch, we don't need your patch.
> > fdatasync() + POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED should work fine.
> 
> It works well. But it needs always fdatasync before calling fadvise.
> For small file, it hurt performance since we can't use the deferred write.

fdatasync() is (much) better than nothing, but a userspace application
which is carefully managing its IO scheduling should use
sync_file_range(SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE) to push data at the disk and
should then run fadvise(DONTNEED) against the same data a few seconds
later, after the IO has completed.

That way, the application won't block against the write I/O at all,
unless of course someone else is thrashing the disk as well, etc.

If the app is doing a lot of file I/O (eg, rsync) then this shouldn't
be too hard to arrange.  Although the payback will be pretty small
unless the IO-intensive process is also compute-intensive at times. 
And such applications are a) fairly rare and b) poorly designed:
shouldn't be doing heavy IO and heavy compute in the same thread!

--
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/