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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150708135758.GA23521@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:57:58 -0400
From:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org >> Linux Kernel Mailing List" 
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 4.1: 9a0e609e3fd ("dm: only run the queue on completion if
 ....") causes significant overhead in osq_lock on ext4/multipath

On Wed, Jul 08 2015 at  4:37am -0400,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com> wrote:

> not sure if this actually a mutex/s390/dm or ext4 problem, but it bisects down to a dm commit:
> 
> Mike,
> 
> commit 9a0e609e3fd8a95c96629b9fbde6b8c5b9a1456a ("dm: only run the queue on 
> completion if congested or no requests pending") causes a significant overhead
> if multiple processes access the same file on an ext4 file system on multipath,
> with direct io.
> 
> This actually appeared first with a kvm guest that has I/O on 500 virtio disks that
> are backed up by the same image file (I used this to test something else)
> 
> but something like the following (without kvm)
> 
> for ((d=1; d<500; d++)); do  dd if=fileonmultipathext4 of=/dev/null bs=4096 iflag=direct & done
> 
> keeps most CPUs on the osq_lock (optimistic spinning for mutex)
> 
> # Overhead  Command         Shared Object        Symbol                                     
> # ........  ..............  ...................  ...........................................
> #
>     73.91%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] osq_lock                               
>      3.15%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] mutex_spin_on_owner.isra.5             
>      3.03%  swapper         [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] osq_lock                               
>      1.08%  kdmwork-252:28  [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] osq_lock                               
>      0.91%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] arch_spin_lock_wait_flags              
>      0.36%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] kmem_cache_free                        
>      0.29%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] account_system_time                    
>      0.25%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] __blockdev_direct_IO                   
>      0.25%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] _mix_pool_bytes                        
>      0.22%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] __schedule                             
>      0.22%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] pcpu_ec_call                           
>      0.21%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] enqueue_entity                         
>      0.18%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] vtime_account_irq_enter                
>      0.17%  dd              [dm_multipath]       [k] multipath_status                       
>      0.17%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] try_to_wake_up                         
>      0.17%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] update_cfs_shares                      
>      0.16%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] blk_update_request  
> 
> With that patch reverted the system is much less contendent on osq_lock
> 
> # Overhead  Command         Shared Object      Symbol                                     
> # ........  ..............  .................  ...........................................
> #
>     30.22%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]   [k] osq_lock                               
>      5.57%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]   [k] mutex_spin_on_owner.isra.5             
>      5.48%  swapper         [kernel.vmlinux]   [k] osq_lock                               
>      1.61%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]   [k] arch_spin_lock_wait_flags              
>      1.38%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]   [k] arch_spin_lock_wait                    
>      1.17%  swapper         [kernel.vmlinux]   [k] mutex_spin_on_owner.isra.5             
>      0.67%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]   [k] kmem_cache_free                        
>      0.63%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]   [k] try_to_wake_up                         
>      0.63%  kdmwork-252:22  [kernel.vmlinux]   [k] osq_lock                               
>      0.57%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]   [k] _mix_pool_bytes                        
>      0.57%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]   [k] account_system_time                    
>      0.49%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]   [k] pcpu_ec_call                           
>      0.48%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]   [k] vtime_account_irq_enter                
>      0.44%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]   [k] zfcp_fsf_reqid_check                   
>      0.42%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]   [k] __blockdev_direct_IO                   
>      0.42%  dd              [kernel.vmlinux]   [k] enqueue_entity    
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea why this patch seems to affect mutex/sem hold times?

No.  Only thing I can think of is that it is creating additional back
pressure on the system and IO isn't proceeding as quickly as before.

This commit has shown itself to be a problem with extensive multipath IO
fault injection tests under load (excessive IO stalls).  So I intend to
revert it anyway -- this report helps cement the need for revert (I'll
cc stable@ too so it'll fix 4.1).

Mike
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ