| 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: <20130515133748.5db2c6fb61c72ec61381d941@linux-foundation.org> Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 13:37:48 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Zlatko Calusic <zcalusic@...sync.net>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, dormando <dormando@...ia.net>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] Reduce system disruption due to kswapd V4 On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:12:31 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote: > This series does not fix all the current known problems with reclaim but > it addresses one important swapping bug when there is background IO. > > ... > > This was tested using memcached+memcachetest while some background IO > was in progress as implemented by the parallel IO tests implement in MM > Tests. memcachetest benchmarks how many operations/second memcached can > service and it is run multiple times. It starts with no background IO and > then re-runs the test with larger amounts of IO in the background to roughly > simulate a large copy in progress. The expectation is that the IO should > have little or no impact on memcachetest which is running entirely in memory. > > 3.10.0-rc1 3.10.0-rc1 > vanilla lessdisrupt-v4 > Ops memcachetest-0M 22155.00 ( 0.00%) 22180.00 ( 0.11%) > Ops memcachetest-715M 22720.00 ( 0.00%) 22355.00 ( -1.61%) > Ops memcachetest-2385M 3939.00 ( 0.00%) 23450.00 (495.33%) > Ops memcachetest-4055M 3628.00 ( 0.00%) 24341.00 (570.92%) > Ops io-duration-0M 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) > Ops io-duration-715M 12.00 ( 0.00%) 7.00 ( 41.67%) > Ops io-duration-2385M 118.00 ( 0.00%) 21.00 ( 82.20%) > Ops io-duration-4055M 162.00 ( 0.00%) 36.00 ( 77.78%) > Ops swaptotal-0M 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) > Ops swaptotal-715M 140134.00 ( 0.00%) 18.00 ( 99.99%) > Ops swaptotal-2385M 392438.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) > Ops swaptotal-4055M 449037.00 ( 0.00%) 27864.00 ( 93.79%) > Ops swapin-0M 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) > Ops swapin-715M 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) > Ops swapin-2385M 148031.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) > Ops swapin-4055M 135109.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) > Ops minorfaults-0M 1529984.00 ( 0.00%) 1530235.00 ( -0.02%) > Ops minorfaults-715M 1794168.00 ( 0.00%) 1613750.00 ( 10.06%) > Ops minorfaults-2385M 1739813.00 ( 0.00%) 1609396.00 ( 7.50%) > Ops minorfaults-4055M 1754460.00 ( 0.00%) 1614810.00 ( 7.96%) > Ops majorfaults-0M 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) > Ops majorfaults-715M 185.00 ( 0.00%) 180.00 ( 2.70%) > Ops majorfaults-2385M 24472.00 ( 0.00%) 101.00 ( 99.59%) > Ops majorfaults-4055M 22302.00 ( 0.00%) 229.00 ( 98.97%) I doubt if many people have the context to understand what these numbers really mean. I don't. > Note how the vanilla kernels performance collapses when there is enough > IO taking place in the background. This drop in performance is part of > what users complain of when they start backups. Note how the swapin and > major fault figures indicate that processes were being pushed to swap > prematurely. With the series applied, there is no noticable performance > drop and while there is still some swap activity, it's tiny. > > 3.10.0-rc1 3.10.0-rc1 > vanilla lessdisrupt-v4 > Page Ins 1234608 101892 > Page Outs 12446272 11810468 > Swap Ins 283406 0 > Swap Outs 698469 27882 > Direct pages scanned 0 136480 > Kswapd pages scanned 6266537 5369364 > Kswapd pages reclaimed 1088989 930832 > Direct pages reclaimed 0 120901 > Kswapd efficiency 17% 17% > Kswapd velocity 5398.371 4635.115 > Direct efficiency 100% 88% > Direct velocity 0.000 117.817 > Percentage direct scans 0% 2% > Page writes by reclaim 1655843 4009929 > Page writes file 957374 3982047 > Page writes anon 698469 27882 > Page reclaim immediate 5245 1745 > Page rescued immediate 0 0 > Slabs scanned 33664 25216 > Direct inode steals 0 0 > Kswapd inode steals 19409 778 The reduction in inode steals might be a significant thing? prune_icache_sb() does invalidate_mapping_pages() and can have the bad habit of shooting down a vast number of pagecache pages (for a large file) in a single hit. Did this workload use large (and clean) files? Did you run any test which would expose this effect? > ... -- 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