linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] nfsd/sunrpc: add support for a workqueue-based nfsd

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]

Message-ID: <CAHQdGtSbkvkGnDykEn0RnDJ5infX39N8cQObhDod+Vy4KX3Gnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 3 Dec 2014 15:44:31 -0500
From:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>
To:	Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@...marydata.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] nfsd/sunrpc: add support for a workqueue-based nfsd

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@...marydata.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 14:59:43 -0500
> Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@...marydata.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 14:08:01 -0500
>> > Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com> wrote:
>> >> Which workqueue are you using? Since the receive code is non-blocking,
>> >> I'd expect you might be able to use rpciod, for the initial socket
>> >> reads, but you wouldn't want to use that for the actual knfsd
>> >> processing.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I'm using the same (nfsd) workqueue for everything. The workqueue
>> > isn't really the bottleneck though, it's the work_struct.
>> >
>> > Basically, the problem is that the work_struct in the svc_xprt was
>> > remaining busy for far too long. So, even though the XPT_BUSY bit had
>> > cleared, the work wouldn't get picked up again until the previous
>> > workqueue job had returned.
>> >
>> > With the change I made today, I just added a new work_struct to
>> > svc_rqst and queue that to the same workqueue to do svc_process as soon
>> > as the receive is done. That means though that each RPC ends up waiting
>> > in the queue twice (once to do the receive and once to process the
>> > RPC), and I think that's probably the reason for the performance delta.
>>
>> Why would the queuing latency still be significant now?
>>
>
> That, I'm not clear on yet and that may not be why this is slower. But,
> I was seeing slightly faster performance with reads before I made
> today's changes. If changing how these jobs get queued doesn't help the
> performance, then I'll have to look elsewhere...

Do you have a good method for measuring that latency? If the queuing
latency turns out to depend on the execution latency for each job,
then perhaps running the message receives on a separate low latency
queue could help (hence the suggestion to use rpciod).

-- 
Trond Myklebust

Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData

trond.myklebust@...marydata.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/