linux-kernel - Re: Screwing with the concurrency limit

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110108161840.GC13269@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Sat, 8 Jan 2011 11:18:40 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Screwing with the concurrency limit

Hello,

On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 06:55:41AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> First off, wild applause for cmwq. The limitations of the old
> workqueues were a major irritation, I think your new implementation
> is fabulous.

Heh, that's flattering.  Thanks.

> However, when merging bcache with mainline, I ran into a bit of a
> thorny issue. Bcache relies heavily on workqueues, updates to the
> cache's btree have to be done after every relevant IO completes.
> Additionally, btree insertions can involve sleeping on IO while the
> root of the tree isn't write locked - so we'd like to not block
> other work items from completing if we don't have to.
> 
> So, one might expect the way to get the best performance would be
>   alloc_workqueue("bcache", WQ_HIGHPRI|WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0)

A bit tangential but is WQ_HIGHPRI really necessary?  Is the use case
very latency sensitive?

> Trouble is, sometimes we do write lock the root of the btree,
> blocking everything else from getting anything done - the end result
> is
>   root@...ia:~# ps ax|grep kworker|wc -l
>   1550

Yeah, that will happen.

> (running dbench in a VM with disks in tmpfs). Performance is fine (I
> think, haven't been trying to rigorously benchmark) but that's
> annoying.
> 
> I think the best way I can express it is that bcache normally wants
> a concurrency limit of 1, except when we're blocking and we aren't
> write locking the root of the btree.
> 
> So, do you think there might be some sane way of doing this with
> cmwq? Some way to say "Don't count this work item I'm in right now
> count against the workqueue's concurrency limit anymore". If such a
> thing could be done, I think it'd be the perfect solution (and I'll
> owe you a case of your choice of beer :)

Hmmm... workqueue allows adjusting @max_active on the fly with
workqueue_set_max_active().  I think what you can do is to wrap write
locks with max_active cramping.  ie. set_max_active(1); write_lock();
do the stuff; write_unlock(); set_max_active(orig_max_active);

workqueue_set_max_active() would need a bit update to make it behave
under such dynamic usage (so that it returns the original max_active
after applying the new one and kicks the delayed work items when
max_active gets increased) but if that sounds like a plan which could
work, I'll be happy to update it.

Good luck.

-- 
tejun
--
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/