| 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: <20150427021638.GH17176@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 10:16:38 +0800
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] md/raid5: exclusive wait_for_stripe
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:24:05AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 21:39:04 +0800 Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I noticed heavy spin lock contention at get_active_stripe() with fsmark
> > multiple thread write workloads.
> >
> > Here is how this hot contention comes from. We have limited stripes, and
> > it's a multiple thread write workload. Hence, those stripes will be taken
> > soon, which puts later processes to sleep for waiting free stripes. When
> > enough stripes(> 1/4 total stripes) are released, all process are woken,
> > trying to get the lock. But there is one only being able to get this lock
> > for each hash lock, making other processes spinning out there for acquiring
> > the lock.
> >
> > Thus, it's effectiveless to wakeup all processes and let them battle for
> > a lock that permits one to access only each time. Instead, we could make
> > it be a exclusive wake up: wake up one process only. That avoids the heavy
> > spin lock contention naturally.
> >
> > Here are some test results I have got with this patch applied(all test run
> > 3 times):
> >
> > `fsmark.files_per_sec'
> > =====================
> >
> > next-20150317 this patch
> > ------------------------- -------------------------
> > metric_value ±stddev metric_value ±stddev change testbox/benchmark/testcase-params
> > ------------------------- ------------------------- -------- ------------------------------
> > 25.600 ±0.0 92.700 ±2.5 262.1% ivb44/fsmark/1x-64t-4BRD_12G-RAID5-btrfs-4M-30G-fsyncBeforeClose
> > 25.600 ±0.0 77.800 ±0.6 203.9% ivb44/fsmark/1x-64t-9BRD_6G-RAID5-btrfs-4M-30G-fsyncBeforeClose
> > 32.000 ±0.0 93.800 ±1.7 193.1% ivb44/fsmark/1x-64t-4BRD_12G-RAID5-ext4-4M-30G-fsyncBeforeClose
> > 32.000 ±0.0 81.233 ±1.7 153.9% ivb44/fsmark/1x-64t-9BRD_6G-RAID5-ext4-4M-30G-fsyncBeforeClose
> > 48.800 ±14.5 99.667 ±2.0 104.2% ivb44/fsmark/1x-64t-4BRD_12G-RAID5-xfs-4M-30G-fsyncBeforeClose
> > 6.400 ±0.0 12.800 ±0.0 100.0% ivb44/fsmark/1x-64t-3HDD-RAID5-btrfs-4M-40G-fsyncBeforeClose
> > 63.133 ±8.2 82.800 ±0.7 31.2% ivb44/fsmark/1x-64t-9BRD_6G-RAID5-xfs-4M-30G-fsyncBeforeClose
> > 245.067 ±0.7 306.567 ±7.9 25.1% ivb44/fsmark/1x-64t-4BRD_12G-RAID5-f2fs-4M-30G-fsyncBeforeClose
> > 17.533 ±0.3 21.000 ±0.8 19.8% ivb44/fsmark/1x-1t-3HDD-RAID5-xfs-4M-40G-fsyncBeforeClose
> > 188.167 ±1.9 215.033 ±3.1 14.3% ivb44/fsmark/1x-1t-4BRD_12G-RAID5-btrfs-4M-30G-NoSync
> > 254.500 ±1.8 290.733 ±2.4 14.2% ivb44/fsmark/1x-1t-9BRD_6G-RAID5-btrfs-4M-30G-NoSync
> >
> > `time.system_time'
> > =====================
> >
> > next-20150317 this patch
> > ------------------------- -------------------------
> > metric_value ±stddev metric_value ±stddev change testbox/benchmark/testcase-params
> > ------------------------- ------------------------- -------- ------------------------------
> > 7235.603 ±1.2 185.163 ±1.9 -97.4% ivb44/fsmark/1x-64t-4BRD_12G-RAID5-btrfs-4M-30G-fsyncBeforeClose
> > 7666.883 ±2.9 202.750 ±1.0 -97.4% ivb44/fsmark/1x-64t-9BRD_6G-RAID5-btrfs-4M-30G-fsyncBeforeClose
> > 14567.893 ±0.7 421.230 ±0.4 -97.1% ivb44/fsmark/1x-64t-3HDD-RAID5-btrfs-4M-40G-fsyncBeforeClose
> > 3697.667 ±14.0 148.190 ±1.7 -96.0% ivb44/fsmark/1x-64t-4BRD_12G-RAID5-xfs-4M-30G-fsyncBeforeClose
> > 5572.867 ±3.8 310.717 ±1.4 -94.4% ivb44/fsmark/1x-64t-9BRD_6G-RAID5-ext4-4M-30G-fsyncBeforeClose
> > 5565.050 ±0.5 313.277 ±1.5 -94.4% ivb44/fsmark/1x-64t-4BRD_12G-RAID5-ext4-4M-30G-fsyncBeforeClose
> > 2420.707 ±17.1 171.043 ±2.7 -92.9% ivb44/fsmark/1x-64t-9BRD_6G-RAID5-xfs-4M-30G-fsyncBeforeClose
> > 3743.300 ±4.6 379.827 ±3.5 -89.9% ivb44/fsmark/1x-64t-3HDD-RAID5-ext4-4M-40G-fsyncBeforeClose
> > 3308.687 ±6.3 363.050 ±2.0 -89.0% ivb44/fsmark/1x-64t-3HDD-RAID5-xfs-4M-40G-fsyncBeforeClose
> >
> > Where,
> >
> > 1x: where 'x' means iterations or loop, corresponding to the 'L' option of fsmark
> >
> > 1t, 64t: where 't' means thread
> >
> > 4M: means the single file size, corresponding to the '-s' option of fsmark
> > 40G, 30G, 120G: means the total test size
> >
> > 4BRD_12G: BRD is the ramdisk, where '4' means 4 ramdisk, and where '12G' means
> > the size of one ramdisk. So, it would be 48G in total. And we made a
> > raid on those ramdisk
> >
> > As you can see, though there are no much performance gain for hard disk
> > workload, the system time is dropped heavily, up to 97%. And as expected,
> > the performance increased a lot, up to 260%, for fast device(ram disk).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/md/raid5.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > drivers/md/raid5.h | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> > index b7e385f..2d8fcc1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> > @@ -344,7 +344,8 @@ static void release_inactive_stripe_list(struct r5conf *conf,
> > int hash)
> > {
> > int size;
> > - bool do_wakeup = false;
> > + bool do_wakeup[NR_STRIPE_HASH_LOCKS] = { false, };
>
> I think I'd rather use an 'unsigned long' and set bits.
Will do that.
>
> > + int i = 0;
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > if (hash == NR_STRIPE_HASH_LOCKS) {
> > @@ -365,17 +366,22 @@ static void release_inactive_stripe_list(struct r5conf *conf,
> > !list_empty(list))
> > atomic_dec(&conf->empty_inactive_list_nr);
> > list_splice_tail_init(list, conf->inactive_list + hash);
> > - do_wakeup = true;
> > + do_wakeup[size - 1] = true;
>
> ... so this becomes
> do_wakeup |= 1 << (size - 1);
>
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(conf->hash_locks + hash, flags);
> > }
> > size--;
> > hash--;
> > }
> >
> > - if (do_wakeup) {
> > - wake_up(&conf->wait_for_stripe);
> > - if (conf->retry_read_aligned)
> > - md_wakeup_thread(conf->mddev->thread);
> > + for (i = 0; i < NR_STRIPE_HASH_LOCKS; i++) {
> > + bool waked_thread = false;
> > + if (do_wakeup[i]) {
> > + wake_up(&conf->wait_for_stripe[i]);
> > + if (!waked_thread) {
> > + waked_thread = true;
> > + md_wakeup_thread(conf->mddev->thread);
> > + }
> > + }
>
> I don't think you want waked_thread to be local to this loop.
> As it is, the "if (!waked_thread)" test *always* succeeds.
>
> You can discard it if do_wakeup becomes and unsigned long, and just do
>
> if (do_wakeup && conf->retry_read_aligned)
> md_wakeup_thread(conf->mddev->thread);
>
> And why have you removed the test on conf->retry_read_aligned??
Oops, a careless editing.
>
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @@ -655,6 +661,18 @@ static int has_failed(struct r5conf *conf)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +/* XXX: might put it to linux/wait.h to be a public API? */
>
> Yes, definitely put it in linux/wait.h
I will send a seperate patch for that.
Thanks.
--yliu
>
>
>
>
> > +#define raid_wait_event_exclusive_cmd(wq, condition, cmd1, cmd2) \
> > +do { \
> > + if (condition) \
> > + break; \
> > + (void)___wait_event(wq, condition, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, 1, 0, \
> > + cmd1; \
> > + schedule(); \
> > + cmd2); \
> > +} while (0)
> > +
> > +
> > static struct stripe_head *
> > get_active_stripe(struct r5conf *conf, sector_t sector,
> > int previous, int noblock, int noquiesce)
> > @@ -684,14 +702,15 @@ get_active_stripe(struct r5conf *conf, sector_t sector,
> > if (!sh) {
> > set_bit(R5_INACTIVE_BLOCKED,
> > &conf->cache_state);
> > - wait_event_lock_irq(
> > - conf->wait_for_stripe,
> > + raid_wait_event_exclusive_cmd(
> > + conf->wait_for_stripe[hash],
> > !list_empty(conf->inactive_list + hash) &&
> > (atomic_read(&conf->active_stripes)
> > < (conf->max_nr_stripes * 3 / 4)
> > || !test_bit(R5_INACTIVE_BLOCKED,
> > &conf->cache_state)),
> > - *(conf->hash_locks + hash));
> > + spin_unlock_irq(conf->hash_locks + hash),
> > + spin_lock_irq(conf->hash_locks + hash));
> > clear_bit(R5_INACTIVE_BLOCKED,
> > &conf->cache_state);
> > } else {
> > @@ -716,6 +735,9 @@ get_active_stripe(struct r5conf *conf, sector_t sector,
> > }
> > } while (sh == NULL);
> >
> > + if (!list_empty(conf->inactive_list + hash))
> > + wake_up(&conf->wait_for_stripe[hash]);
> > +
> > spin_unlock_irq(conf->hash_locks + hash);
> > return sh;
> > }
> > @@ -2136,7 +2158,7 @@ static int resize_stripes(struct r5conf *conf, int newsize)
> > cnt = 0;
> > list_for_each_entry(nsh, &newstripes, lru) {
> > lock_device_hash_lock(conf, hash);
> > - wait_event_cmd(conf->wait_for_stripe,
> > + raid_wait_event_exclusive_cmd(conf->wait_for_stripe[hash],
> > !list_empty(conf->inactive_list + hash),
> > unlock_device_hash_lock(conf, hash),
> > lock_device_hash_lock(conf, hash));
> > @@ -6391,7 +6413,9 @@ static struct r5conf *setup_conf(struct mddev *mddev)
> > spin_lock_init(&conf->device_lock);
> > seqcount_init(&conf->gen_lock);
> > init_waitqueue_head(&conf->wait_for_quiesce);
> > - init_waitqueue_head(&conf->wait_for_stripe);
> > + for (i = 0; i < NR_STRIPE_HASH_LOCKS; i++) {
> > + init_waitqueue_head(&conf->wait_for_stripe[i]);
> > + }
> > init_waitqueue_head(&conf->wait_for_overlap);
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&conf->handle_list);
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&conf->hold_list);
> > diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.h b/drivers/md/raid5.h
> > index fab53a3..cdad2d2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/md/raid5.h
> > +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.h
> > @@ -509,7 +509,7 @@ struct r5conf {
> > atomic_t empty_inactive_list_nr;
> > struct llist_head released_stripes;
> > wait_queue_head_t wait_for_quiesce;
> > - wait_queue_head_t wait_for_stripe;
> > + wait_queue_head_t wait_for_stripe[NR_STRIPE_HASH_LOCKS];
> > wait_queue_head_t wait_for_overlap;
> > unsigned long cache_state;
> > #define R5_INACTIVE_BLOCKED 1 /* release of inactive stripes blocked,
>
--
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