| 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: <20130516103344.GF11497@suse.de> Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 11:33:45 +0100 From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> 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 Wed, May 15, 2013 at 01:37:48PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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. > I should have stuck in a Sad Face/Happy Face index. You're right though, there isn't much help explaining the figures here. Do you want to replace the brief paragraph talking about these figures with the following? 20 iterations of this test were run in total and averaged. Every 5 iterations, additional IO was generated in the background using dd to measure how the workload was impacted. The 0M, 715M, 2385M and 4055M subblock refer to the amount of IO going on in the background at each iteration. So memcachetest-2385M is reporting how many transactions/second memcachetest recorded on average over 5 iterations while there was 2385M of IO going on in the ground. There are six blocks of information reported here memcachetest is the transactions/second reported by memcachetest. In the vanilla kernel note that performance drops from around 22K/sec to just under 4K/second when there is 2385M of IO going on in the background. This is one type of performance collapse users complain about if a large cp or backup starts in the background io-duration refers to how long it takes for the background IO to complete. It's showing that with the patched kernel that the IO completes faster while not interfering with the memcache workload swaptotal is the total amount of swap traffic. With the patched kernel, the total amount of swapping is much reduced although it is still not zero. swapin in this case is an indication as to whether we are swap trashing. The closer the swapin/swapout ratio is to 0, the worse the trashing is. Note with the patched kernel that there is no swapin activity indicating that all the pages swapped were really inactive unused pages. minorfaults are just minor faults. An increased number of minor faults can indicate that page reclaim is unmapping the pages but not swapping them out before they are faulted back in. With the patched kernel, there is only a small change in minor faults majorfaults are just major faults in the target workload and a high number can indicate that a workload is being prematurely swapped. With the patched kernel, major faults are much reduced. As there are no swapin's recorded so it's not being swapped. The likely explanation is that that libraries or configuration files used by the workload during startup get paged out by the background IO. Overall with the series applied, there is no noticable performance drop due to background IO and while there is still some swap activity, it's tiny and the lack of swapins imply that the swapped pages were inactive and unused. > > 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? It might. It could either be a reflection of kswap writing fewer swap pages, reaching the high watermark more quicky and calling shrink_slab() fewer times overall. This is semi-supported by the reduced slabs scanned figures. It could also be a reflection of the IO completing faster. The IO is generated with dd conv=fdatasync to a single dirty file. If it's getting pruned during the IO then there will be further delay while the metadata is re-read from disk. With the series applied, the IO completes faster, it gets cleaned sooner and when prune_icache_sb invalidates it, it does not get re-read from disk again -- or at least it gets read back in fewer times.. satisfactory solid explanation. > 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? > It uses a single large file for writing so how clean it is depends on the flushers and how long before dd calls fdatasync I ran with fsmark in single threaded mode for large numbers of 30M files filling memory, postmark tuned to fill memory and a basic largedd test -- all mixed read/write workloads. The performance was not obviously affected by the series. The overall number of slabs scanned and inodes reclaimed varied between the tests. Some reclaimed more, some less. I graphed the slabs scanned over time and found postmark - single large spike with the series applied at the start, otherwise almost identicial levels of scanning. inode reclaimed from kswapd were slightly higher over time but not by much largedd - patched series had a few reclaim spikes but again it was more reclaiming overall but broadly similar behaviour to the vanilla kernel fsmark - the patched series showed steady slab scanning throughout the lifetime of the test unlike the vanilla kernel which had a single large spike at the start. However, very few inodes were actually reclaimed, it was scanning activity only and actual performance of the benchmark was unchanged. Overall nothing horrible fell out. I'll run a sysbench test in read-only mode which would be closer to the workload you have in mind and see what falls out. Thanks Andrew. -- 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