| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20111223111611.GB22691@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:16:11 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] readahead: add /debug/readahead/stats
On Fri 23-12-11 11:33:20, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:06:56PM +0800, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 09:29:36AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:32:41AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Wed 14-12-11 14:36:25, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > > > This looks all inherently racy (which doesn't matter much as you suggest)
> > > > > > so I just wanted to suggest that if you used per-cpu counters you'd get
> > > > > > race-free and faster code at the cost of larger data structures and using
> > > > > > percpu_counter_add() instead of ++ (which doesn't seem like a big
> > > > > > complication to me).
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, here is the incremental patch to use per-cpu counters :)
> > > > Thanks! This looks better. I just thought you would use per-cpu counters
> > > > as defined in include/linux/percpu_counter.h and are used e.g. by bdi
> > > > stats. This is more standard for statistics in the kernel than using
> > > > per-cpu variables directly.
> > >
> > > Ah yes, I overlooked that facility! However the percpu_counter's
> > > ability to maintain and quickly retrieve the global value seems
> > > unnecessary feature/overheads for readahead stats, because here we
> > > only need to sum up the global value when the user requests it. If
> > > switching to percpu_counter, I'm afraid every readahead(1MB) event
> > > will lead to the update of percpu_counter global value (grabbing the
> > > spinlock) due to 1MB > some small batch size. This actually performs
> > > worse than the plain global array of values in the v1 patch.
> >
> > So use a custom batch size so that typical increments don't require
> > locking for every add. The bdi stat counters are an example of this
> > sort of setup to reduce lock contention on typical IO workloads as
> > concurrency increases.
> >
> > All these stats have is a requirement for a different batch size to
> > avoid frequent lock grabs. The stats don't have to update the global
> > counter very often (only to prvent overflow!) so you count get away
> > with a batch size in the order of 2^30 without any issues....
> >
> > We have a general per-cpu counter infrastructure - we should be
> > using it and improving it and not reinventing it a different way
> > every time we need a per-cpu counter.
>
> OK, let's try using percpu_counter, with a huge batch size.
>
> It actually adds both code size and runtime overheads slightly.
> Are you sure you like this incremental patch?
Well, I like it because it's easier to see the code is doing the right
thing when it's using standard kernel infrastructure...
Honza
> ---
> mm/readahead.c | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>
> --- linux-next.orig/mm/readahead.c 2011-12-23 10:04:32.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-next/mm/readahead.c 2011-12-23 11:18:35.000000000 +0800
> @@ -61,7 +61,18 @@ enum ra_account {
> RA_ACCOUNT_MAX,
> };
>
> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long[RA_PATTERN_ALL][RA_ACCOUNT_MAX], ra_stat);
> +#define RA_STAT_BATCH (INT_MAX / 2)
> +static struct percpu_counter ra_stat[RA_PATTERN_ALL][RA_ACCOUNT_MAX];
> +
> +static inline void add_ra_stat(int i, int j, s64 amount)
> +{
> + __percpu_counter_add(&ra_stat[i][j], amount, RA_STAT_BATCH);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void inc_ra_stat(int i, int j)
> +{
> + add_ra_stat(i, j, 1);
> +}
>
> static void readahead_stats(struct address_space *mapping,
> pgoff_t offset,
> @@ -76,62 +87,54 @@ static void readahead_stats(struct addre
> {
> pgoff_t eof = ((i_size_read(mapping->host)-1) >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT) + 1;
>
> - preempt_disable();
> -
> - __this_cpu_inc(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_COUNT]);
> - __this_cpu_add(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_SIZE], size);
> - __this_cpu_add(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_ASYNC_SIZE], async_size);
> - __this_cpu_add(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_ACTUAL], actual);
> + inc_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_COUNT);
> + add_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_SIZE, size);
> + add_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_ASYNC_SIZE, async_size);
> + add_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_ACTUAL, actual);
>
> if (start + size >= eof)
> - __this_cpu_inc(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_EOF]);
> + inc_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_EOF);
> if (actual < size)
> - __this_cpu_inc(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_CACHE_HIT]);
> + inc_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_CACHE_HIT);
>
> if (actual) {
> - __this_cpu_inc(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_IOCOUNT]);
> + inc_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_IOCOUNT);
>
> if (start <= offset && offset < start + size)
> - __this_cpu_inc(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_SYNC]);
> + inc_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_SYNC);
>
> if (for_mmap)
> - __this_cpu_inc(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_MMAP]);
> + inc_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_MMAP);
> if (for_metadata)
> - __this_cpu_inc(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_METADATA]);
> + inc_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_METADATA);
> }
> -
> - preempt_enable();
> }
>
> static void ra_stats_clear(void)
> {
> - int cpu;
> int i, j;
>
> - for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> - for (i = 0; i < RA_PATTERN_ALL; i++)
> - for (j = 0; j < RA_ACCOUNT_MAX; j++)
> - per_cpu(ra_stat[i][j], cpu) = 0;
> + for (i = 0; i < RA_PATTERN_ALL; i++)
> + for (j = 0; j < RA_ACCOUNT_MAX; j++)
> + percpu_counter_set(&ra_stat[i][j], 0);
> }
>
> -static void ra_stats_sum(unsigned long ra_stats[RA_PATTERN_MAX][RA_ACCOUNT_MAX])
> +static void ra_stats_sum(long long ra_stats[RA_PATTERN_MAX][RA_ACCOUNT_MAX])
> {
> - int cpu;
> int i, j;
>
> - for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> - for (i = 0; i < RA_PATTERN_ALL; i++)
> - for (j = 0; j < RA_ACCOUNT_MAX; j++) {
> - unsigned long n = per_cpu(ra_stat[i][j], cpu);
> - ra_stats[i][j] += n;
> - ra_stats[RA_PATTERN_ALL][j] += n;
> - }
> + for (i = 0; i < RA_PATTERN_ALL; i++)
> + for (j = 0; j < RA_ACCOUNT_MAX; j++) {
> + s64 n = percpu_counter_sum(&ra_stat[i][j]);
> + ra_stats[i][j] += n;
> + ra_stats[RA_PATTERN_ALL][j] += n;
> + }
> }
>
> static int readahead_stats_show(struct seq_file *s, void *_)
> {
> - unsigned long i;
> - unsigned long ra_stats[RA_PATTERN_MAX][RA_ACCOUNT_MAX];
> + long long ra_stats[RA_PATTERN_MAX][RA_ACCOUNT_MAX];
> + int i;
>
> seq_printf(s,
> "%-10s %10s %10s %10s %10s %10s %10s %10s %10s %10s %10s\n",
> @@ -153,8 +156,8 @@ static int readahead_stats_show(struct s
> if (iocount == 0)
> iocount = 1;
>
> - seq_printf(s, "%-10s %10lu %10lu %10lu %10lu %10lu "
> - "%10lu %10lu %10lu %10lu %10lu\n",
> + seq_printf(s, "%-10s %10lld %10lld %10lld %10lld %10lld "
> + "%10lld %10lld %10lld %10lld %10lld\n",
> ra_pattern_names[i].name,
> ra_stats[i][RA_ACCOUNT_COUNT],
> ra_stats[i][RA_ACCOUNT_EOF],
> @@ -196,6 +199,7 @@ static int __init readahead_create_debug
> {
> struct dentry *root;
> struct dentry *entry;
> + int i, j;
>
> root = debugfs_create_dir("readahead", NULL);
> if (!root)
> @@ -211,6 +215,10 @@ static int __init readahead_create_debug
> if (!entry)
> goto out;
>
> + for (i = 0; i < RA_PATTERN_ALL; i++)
> + for (j = 0; j < RA_ACCOUNT_MAX; j++)
> + percpu_counter_init(&ra_stat[i][j], 0);
> +
> return 0;
> out:
> printk(KERN_ERR "readahead: failed to create debugfs entries\n");
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists