linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] block: loop: support to submit I/O via kernel aio based

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]

Date:	Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:37:05 -0700
From:	Maxim Patlasov <mpatlasov@...allels.com>
To:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] block: loop: support to submit I/O via kernel
 aio based

On 03/18/2015 07:57 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Maxim Patlasov <mpatlasov@...allels.com> wrote:
>> On 01/13/2015 07:44 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> Part of the patch is based on Dave's previous post.
>>>
>>> This patch submits I/O to fs via kernel aio, and we
>>> can obtain following benefits:
>>>
>>>          - double cache in both loop file system and backend file
>>>          gets avoided
>>>          - context switch decreased a lot, and finally CPU utilization
>>>          is decreased
>>>          - cached memory got decreased a lot
>>>
>>> One main side effect is that throughput is decreased when
>>> accessing raw loop block(not by filesystem) with kernel aio.
>>>
>>> This patch has passed xfstests test(./check -g auto), and
>>> both test and scratch devices are loop block, file system is ext4.
>>>
>>> Follows two fio tests' result:
>>>
>>> 1. fio test inside ext4 file system over loop block
>>> 1) How to run
>>>          - linux kernel base: 3.19.0-rc3-next-20150108(loop-mq merged)
>>>          - loop over SSD image 1 in ext4
>>>          - linux psync, 16 jobs, size 200M, ext4 over loop block
>>>          - test result: IOPS from fio output
>>>
>>> 2) Throughput result:
>>>          -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>          test cases          |randread   |read   |randwrite  |write  |
>>>          -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>          base                |16799      |59508  |31059      |58829
>>>          -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>          base+kernel aio     |15480      |64453  |30187      |57222
>>>          -------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Ming, it's important to understand the overhead of aio_kernel_()
>> implementation. So could you please add test results for raw SSD device to
>> the table above next time (in v3 of your patches).
> what aio_kernel_() does is to just call ->read_iter()/->write_iter(),
> so it should not have introduced extra overload.
>
>  From performance view, the effect is only from switching to
> O_DIRECT. With O_DIRECT, double cache can be avoided,
> meantime both page caches and CPU utilization can be decreased.

The way how you reused loop_queue_rq() --> queue_work() functionality 
(added early, by commit b5dd2f604) may affect performance of O_DIRECT 
operations. It can be easily demonstrated on ram-drive, but measurements 
on real storage h/w would be more convincing.

Btw, when you wrote "linux psync, 16 jobs, size 200M, ext4 over loop 
block" -- does it mean that there were 16 threads in userspace 
submitting I/O concurrently? If yes, throughput comparison for a single 
job test would be also useful to look at.

Thanks,
Maxim
--
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/