linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dio: Fast-path for page-aligned IOs

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: <BANLkTi=GeY+6ZTKkYidFd+J=T7ER1+Lk6kv+uJe6GA6v1HrVaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:21:48 -0700
From:	Daniel Ehrenberg <dehrenberg@...gle.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dio: Fast-path for page-aligned IOs

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> Dan Ehrenberg <dehrenberg@...gle.com> writes:
>
>> This code introduces a fast-path variant of __blockdev_direct_IO
>> for the special case where the request size is a multiple of the page
>> size, the inode block size is a page, the user memory is page-aligned,
>> the underlying storage is contiguous on disk and the file location is
>> already initialized. The special case decreases the amount of
>> bookkeeping required, which saves a significant amount of CPU time on
>> a fast device such as a ramdisk or an SSD.  The patch is inspired by
>> earlier code by Ken Chen.
>
> Is it understood why your fast path is that much faster?
> i.e. what's the slow part in the normal path that it avoids?
>
> I am wondering if some of the improvements could be gotten even for less
> rigid pre conditions.

I should start by saying that I really should've submitted this with
an [RFC] tag. I'm eager for feedback on my first Linux kernel patch,
and I'm really glad you responded.

The slowness in the dio code that I have observed is not in any
particular place, but rather a death of a thousand cuts. Lines like
        memset(dio, 0, offsetof(struct dio, pages));
show up as significant in the CPU profile, but so do other random
lines that manipulate the struct dio.

In an earlier version of the patch, I restricted the change to only
page-sized operations. This was criticized for being insufficiently
general. In generalizing to page-multiple operations, I noticed a
minor regression, which seems to be from the IS_ALIGNED calls.

You're right that these preconditions are rather rigid, though. If you
have a suggestion for a more general precondition, I can try it out
and see if it maintains the performance properties I want.
>
>> +             /*
>> +              * The i_alloc_sem will be released at I/O completion,
>> +              * possibly in a different thread.
>> +              */
>> +             down_read_non_owner(&inode->i_alloc_sem);
>
> There's just a patch kit posted from hch which removes that semaphore.
>
> -Andi

Once this patch is finalized and merged, I can make a new version of
the patch based on the new synchronization mechanism.

Dan
--
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/