linux-kernel - Re: [-stable 3.8.1 performance regression] madvise POSIX_FADV

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:58:58 -0400
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Rob van der Heij <rvdheij@...il.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Yannick Brosseau <yannick.brosseau@...il.com>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"lttng-dev@...ts.lttng.org" <lttng-dev@...ts.lttng.org>
Subject: Re: [-stable 3.8.1 performance regression] madvise
	POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED

* Dave Chinner (david@...morbit.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:20:16AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Rob van der Heij (rvdheij@...il.com) wrote:
> > > Wouldn't you batch the calls to drop the pages from cache rather than drop
> > > one packet at a time?
> > 
> > By default for kernel tracing, lttng's trace packets are 1MB, so I
> > consider the call to fadvise to be already batched by applying it to 1MB
> > packets rather than indivitual pages. Even there, it seems that the
> > extra overhead added by the lru drain on each CPU is noticeable.
> > 
> > Another reason for not batching this in larger chunks is to limit the
> > impact of the tracer on the kernel page cache. LTTng limits itself to
> > its own set of buffers, and use the page cache for what is absolutely
> > needed to perform I/O, but no more.
> 
> I think you are doing it wrong. This is a poster child case for
> using Direct IO and completely avoiding the page cache altogether....

I just tried replacing my sync_file_range()+fadvise() calls and instead
pass the O_DIRECT flag to open(). Unfortunately, I must be doing
something very wrong, because I get only 1/3rd of the throughput, and
the page cache fills up. Any idea why ?

Here are my results:

heavy-syscall.c: 30M sigaction() syscall with bad parameters (returns
immediately). Used as high-throughput stress-test for the tracer.
Tracing to disk with LTTng, all kernel tracepoints activated, including
system calls.

Tracer configuration: per-core buffers split into 4 sub-buffers of
262kB. splice() is used to transfer data from buffers to disk. Runs on a
8-core Intel machine.

Writing to a software raid-1 ext3 partition.
ext3 mount options: rw,errors=remount-ro

* sync_file_range+fadvise 3.9.8
  - with lru drain on fadvise

Kernel cache usage:
Before tracing: 56272k cached
After tracing:  56388k cached

939M	/root/lttng-traces/auto-20130702-090430
time ./heavy-syscall 
real	0m21.910s
throughput: 42MB/s


* sync_file_range+fadvise 3.9.8
  - without lru drain on fadvise: manually reverted

Kernel cache usage:
Before tracing: 67968k cached
After tracing:  67984k cached

945M	/root/lttng-traces/auto-20130702-092505
time ./heavy-syscall 
real	0m21.872s
throughput: 43MB/s


* O_DIRECT 3.9.8
  - O_DIRECT flag on open(), removed fadvise and sync_file_range calls

Kernel cache usage:
Before tracing:  99480k cached
After tracing:  360132k cached

258M	/root/lttng-traces/auto-20130702-090603
time ./heavy-syscall 
real	0m19.627s
throughput: 13MB/s


* No cache hints 3.9.8
  - only removed fadvise and sync_file_range calls

Kernel cache usage:
Before tracing: 103556k cached
After tracing:  363712k cached

945M	/root/lttng-traces/auto-20130702-092505
time ./heavy-syscall 
real	0m19.672s
throughput: 48MB/s

Thoughts ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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/