linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/25] AIO performance improvements/cleanups

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: <20121129190133.GF15094@google.com>
Date:	Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:01:33 -0800
From:	Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
To:	Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, bcrl@...ck.org, jmoyer@...hat.com,
	axboe@...nel.dk, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/25] AIO performance improvements/cleanups

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 04:03:03PM -0800, Zach Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 08:43:24AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > Bunch of performance improvements and cleanups Zach Brown and I have
> > been working on. The code should be pretty solid at this point, though
> > it could of course use more review and testing.
> 
> Thanks for sending these out.  I have some initial review comments
> that'll follow, but I'm running out of steam today.  I'll continue
> tomorrow.
> 
> > The results in my testing are pretty impressive, particularly when an
> > ioctx is being shared between multiple threads. In my crappy synthetic
> > benchmark, with 4 threads submitting and one thread reaping completions,
> > I saw overhead in the aio code go from ~50% (mostly ioctx lock
> > contention) to low single digits. Performance with ioctx per thread
> > improved too, but I'd have to rerun those benchmarks.
> 
> You should probably mention that those four threads were *spinning* on
> io_submit() :).  I'm still guessing that this unreasonably inflated the
> contention amongst submitters and that without this inflation we might
> not find the per-cpu ioctx refcounts worth the trouble.

Yeah, should've mentioned that :) It was intentionally a worst case
scenario for aio.

> > Performance wise, the end result of this patch series is that submitting
> > a kiocb writes to _no_ shared cachelines - the penalty for sharing an
> > ioctx is gone there. There's still going to be some cacheline contention
> > when we deliver the completions to the aio ringbuffer (at least if you
> > have interrupts being delivered on multiple cores, which for high end
> > stuff you do) but I have a couple more patches not in this series that
> > implement coalescing for that (by taking advantage of interrupt
> > coalescing). With that, there's basically no bottlenecks or performance
> > issues to speak of in the aio code.
> 
> Yeah, this is good stuff.  Thanks for pushing it.
> 
> We should mention Jens' omnibus patch that also took on these problems:
> 
>   http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-block.git;a=commit;h=6b6723fc3e4f24dbd80526df935ca115ead578c6

Oh yeah. I think this patch series solves everything Jens was working on
in the aio code, but there's still dio stuff in that patch that's worth
looking at.
--
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/