linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] block: account io: kill atomic operations

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <55A7C910.9040708@kernel.dk>
Date:	Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:09:04 -0600
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] block: account io: kill atomic operations

On 07/16/2015 09:01 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>> On 07/15/2015 09:16 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This patches kills two kinds of atomic operations in block
>>> accounting I/O.
>>>
>>> The 1st two patches convert atomic refcount of partition
>>> into percpu refcount.
>>>
>>> The 2nd two patches converts partition->in_flight[] into percpu
>>> variable.
>>>
>>> With this change, ~15% throughput improvement can be observed
>>> when running fio(randread) over null blk in a dual-socket
>>> environment.
>>
>>
>> I've played with this before, but always ran into the hurdle of making
>> part_in_flight() too expensive ended up hurting results in the end. Making
>
> Yes, it is a bit expensive, but it is only run at most one time per tick for
> one partition.

Yup, but that can still be 1000 per second. And up until last year, it 
was even worse: 7276d02e241dc. So it's not too surprising if there's 
more low hanging fruit :-)

If we can make the rounding more lazy, then we should go ahead and do that.

>> the inc/dec parts of accounting percpu is a no-brainer, unfortunately the
>> summing then becomes pretty expensive. I'll run this through some testing
>> and see what kind of results I get.
>
> The first two patches should be fine, and it still can get ~8% improvement
> in my test.

Agree, those can go right in.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/