| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 16:53:16 +0100 From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> To: linux-mm@...ck.org Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: [MMTests] Page reclaim performance on ext4 Configuration: global-dhp__pagereclaim-performance-ext4 Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__pagereclaim-performance-ext4 Benchmarks: postmark largedd fsmark-single fsmark-threaded micro Summary ======= fsmark is showing a performance dip in 3.4 on a 32-bit machine that is not matched by results elsewhere. A number of tests show that there was swapping activity in 3.1 and 3.2 which should have been completely unnecessary. It has been fixed but the fixes should have been backported as some were based on reports of poor interactivity performance during IO. One largedd test on hydra showed that a number of dirty pages are reaching the end of the LRU. This is not visible on other tests but should be monitored. I added linux-ext4 to the list because there are some performance drops that are not visible elsewhere so may be filesystem-specific. Benchmark notes =============== Each of the benchmarks trigger page reclaim in a fairly simple manner. The intention is not to be exhaustive but to test basic reclaim patterns that the VM should never get wrong. Regressions may also be due to changes in the IO scheduler or underlying filesystem. The workloads are predominately file-based. Anonymous page reclaim stress testing is covered by another test. mkfs was run on system startup. No attempt was made to age it. No special mkfs or mount options were used. postmark o 15000 transactions o File size ranged 3096 bytes to 5M o 100 subdirectories o Total footprint approximately 4*TOTAL_RAM This workload is a single-threaded benchmark intended to measure filesystem performance for many short-lived and small files. It's primary weakness is that it does no application processing and so the page aging is basically on per-file granularity. largedd o Target size 8*TOTAL_RAM This downloads a large file and makes copies with dd until the target footprint size is reached. fsmark o Parallel directories were used o 1 Thread per CPU o 30M Filesize o 16 directories o 256 files per directory o TOTAL_RAM_IN_BYTES/FILESIZE files per iteration o 15 iterations Single: ./fs_mark -d /tmp/fsmark-25458/1 -D 16 -N 256 -n 532 -L 15 -S0 -s 31457280 Thread: ./fs_mark -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/1 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/2 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/3 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/4 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/5 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/6 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/7 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/8 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/9 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/10 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/11 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/12 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/13 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/14 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/15 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/16 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/17 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/18 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/19 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/20 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/21 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/22 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/23 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/24 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/25 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/26 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/27 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/28 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/29 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/30 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/31 -d /tmp/fsmark-28217/32 -D 16 -N 256 -n 16 -L 15 -S0 -s 31457280 micro o Total mapping size 10*TOTAL_RAM o NR_CPU threads o 5 iterations This creates one process per CPU and creates a large file-backed mapping up to the total mapping size. Each of the threads does a streaming read of the mapping for a number of iterations. It then restarts with a streaming write. Completion time is the primary factor here but be careful as a good completion time can be due to excessive reclaim which has an adverse effect on many other workloads. =========================================================== Machine: arnold Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__pagereclaim-performance-ext4/arnold/comparison.html Arch: x86 CPUs: 1 socket, 2 threads Model: Pentium 4 Disk: Single Rotary Disk Status: Generally good but swapping in 3.1 and 3.2 =========================================================== fsmark-single ------------- There was a performance dip in 3.4 that is not visible for ext3 and so may be filesystem-specific. From a reclaim perspective the figures look ok. fsmark-threaded --------------- This also shows a large performance dip in 3.4 and an increase in variance but again the reclaim stats look ok. postmark -------- As seen on ext3 there was a performance dip for kernels 3.1 to 3.3 that is not quite been recovered in 3.4. There was also swapping activity for the 3.1 and 3.2 kernels which may partially explain the problem. largedd ------- Completion times are mixed. Again some swapping activity is visible in 3.1 and 3.2 which has been resolved but not backported. micro ----- Completion figures are not looking bad for 3.4 ========================================================== Machine: hydra Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__pagereclaim-performance-ext4/hydra/comparison.html Arch: x86-64 CPUs: 1 socket, 4 threads Model: AMD Phenom II X4 940 Disk: Single Rotary Disk Status: Ok but postmark shows high inode steals ========================================================== fsmark-single ------------- Performance was declining until 3.1 and been steady every since. Some minor amounts of swapping is visible in 3.1 fsmark-threaded --------------- Surprisingly stead performance but recent kernels show some direct reclaim is going on. It's a tiny percentage and lower than it has been historically but keep an eye on it. postmark ------- As with other tests 3.1 saw a performance dip and swapping activity. 3.2 was also swapping although performance was not affected. While the reclaim figures currently look ok, the actual performance sucks. As the same is not visible on ext3, this may be a filesystem problem. largedd ------- Completion figures look good but as before, swapping in 3.1 and 3.2. What is of concern is the pages reclaimed by PageReclaim are excessively high in 3.3 and 3.4. This implies that a large number of dirty pages are reaching the end of the LRU and this can be a problem. Minimally it increases kswapd CPU usage but can also be indicate a flushing problem. micro ----- Looks ok. ========================================================== Machine: sandy Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__pagereclaim-performance-ext4/sandy/comparison.html Arch: x86-64 CPUs: 1 socket, 8 threads Model: Intel Core i7-2600 Disk: Single Rotary Disk Status: Generally ok, but swapping in 3.1 and 3.2 ========================================================== fsmark-single ------------- Steady performance throughout. Tiny swap activity visible on 3.1 and 3.2 which caused no harm but does correlate with other tests. fsmark-threaded --------------- Also steady with the exception of 3.2 which is bizzare from a reclaim perspective. There was no direct reclaim scanning but a lot of inodes were reclaimed. postmark -------- Same performance dip in 3.1 and 3.2 and accompanied by the same swapping problem. largedd ------- Completion figures generally looking ok although again 3.1 is bad from a swapping and direct reclaim perspective. micro ----- Looks ok -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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