| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:37:38 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs-writeback: drop wb->list_lock during blk_finish_plug()
[cc Tejun]
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 08:07:04AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 04:00:12PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:58:06PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Wed 16-09-15 11:16:21, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > > Short version, Linus' patch still gives bigger IOs and similar perf to
> > > > Dave's original. I should have done the blktrace runs for 60 seconds
> > > > instead of 30, I suspect that would even out the average sizes between
> > > > the three patches.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the data Chris. So I guess we are fine with what's currently in,
> > > right?
> >
> > Looks like it works well to me.
>
> Graph looks good, though I'll confirm it on my test rig once I get
> out from under the pile of email and other stuff that is queued up
> after being away for a week...
I ran some tests in the background while reading other email.....
TL;DR: Results look really bad - not only is the plugging
problematic, baseline writeback performance has regressed
significantly. We need to revert the plugging changes until the
underlying writeback performance regressions are sorted out.
In more detail, these tests were run on my usual 16p/16GB RAM
performance test VM with storage set up as described here:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1768786
The test:
$ ~/tests/fsmark-10-4-test-xfs.sh
meta-data=/dev/vdc isize=512 agcount=500, agsize=268435455 blks
= sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=1
= crc=1 finobt=1, sparse=0
data = bsize=4096 blocks=134217727500, imaxpct=1
= sunit=0 swidth=0 blks
naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 ftype=1
log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=131072, version=2
= sectsz=512 sunit=1 blks, lazy-count=1
realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0
# ./fs_mark -D 10000 -S0 -n 10000 -s 4096 -L 120 -d /mnt/scratch/0 -d /mnt/scratch/1 -d /mnt/scratch/2 -d /mnt/scratch/3 -d /mnt/scratch/4 -d /mnt/scratch/5 -d /mnt/scratch/6 -d /mnt/scratch/7
# Version 3.3, 8 thread(s) starting at Thu Sep 17 08:08:36 2015
# Sync method: NO SYNC: Test does not issue sync() or fsync() calls.
# Directories: Time based hash between directories across 10000 subdirectories with 180 seconds per subdirectory.
# File names: 40 bytes long, (16 initial bytes of time stamp with 24 random bytes at end of name)
# Files info: size 4096 bytes, written with an IO size of 16384 bytes per write
# App overhead is time in microseconds spent in the test not doing file writing related system calls.
FSUse% Count Size Files/sec App Overhead
0 80000 4096 106938.0 543310
0 160000 4096 102922.7 476362
0 240000 4096 107182.9 538206
0 320000 4096 107871.7 619821
0 400000 4096 99255.6 622021
0 480000 4096 103217.8 609943
0 560000 4096 96544.2 640988
0 640000 4096 100347.3 676237
0 720000 4096 87534.8 483495
0 800000 4096 72577.5 2556920
0 880000 4096 97569.0 646996
<RAM fills here, sustained performance is now dependent on writeback>
0 960000 4096 80147.0 515679
0 1040000 4096 100394.2 816979
0 1120000 4096 91466.5 739009
0 1200000 4096 85868.1 977506
0 1280000 4096 89691.5 715207
0 1360000 4096 52547.5 712810
0 1440000 4096 47999.1 685282
0 1520000 4096 47894.3 697261
0 1600000 4096 47549.4 789977
0 1680000 4096 40029.2 677885
0 1760000 4096 16637.4 12804557
0 1840000 4096 16883.6 24295975
0 1920000 4096 18852.1 22264137
0 2000000 4096 27107.3 10310408
0 2080000 4096 23654.1 19823567
0 2160000 4096 24588.9 19769484
0 2240000 4096 13959.3 40168163
0 2320000 4096 26239.2 17806813
0 2400000 4096 17858.5 24596715
0 2480000 4096 12072.9 38177650
0 2560000 4096 9989.7 43413729
<This is Real Bad. It gets significantly worse as the test goes on:>
0 6880000 4096 11773.4 16470400
0 6960000 4096 5556.5 27325343
0 7040000 4096 13816.6 22440991
0 7120000 4096 7322.4 42086686
0 7200000 4096 8033.0 31182907
0 7280000 4096 10589.4 30876729
0 7360000 4096 15844.5 19903105
0 7440000 4096 9187.7 35041718
0 7520000 4096 11800.9 12254920
0 7600000 4096 20049.9 13052020
0 7680000 4096 17444.9 12055262
0 7760000 4096 25900.6 10633885
0 7840000 4096 6398.8 12014901
0 7920000 4096 12147.4 14655678
<...>
0 9360000 4096 19406.0 5874193
0 9440000 4096 7261.3 14542806
0 9520000 4096 14978.7 21921186
0 9600000 4096 12656.7 10539894
real 10m9.240s
user 0m51.817s
sys 13m23.874s
A quick reading of the IO behaviour shows an average of about 1000
IOPS and 100MB/s, which matches roughly with the average files/s
created. There's no obvious peaks and gaps in the IO throughput, but
CPU usage has regular gaps where it falls to nothing and the only
"usage" is IO wait time.
Reverting just Linus' patch, so no plugging at all in the code
(i.e. the baseline numbers):
FSUse% Count Size Files/sec App Overhead
0 80000 4096 109017.5 586268
0 160000 4096 93548.1 553333
0 240000 4096 104141.7 817182
0 320000 4096 112846.2 597494
0 400000 4096 98628.6 641524
0 480000 4096 86586.1 1274195
0 560000 4096 95965.0 776961
0 640000 4096 84585.9 583330
0 720000 4096 93787.1 695658
0 800000 4096 94112.7 645925
0 880000 4096 92259.2 792950
<RAM fills here, sustained performance is now dependent on writeback>
0 960000 4096 62936.9 763642
0 1040000 4096 22484.8 737471
0 1120000 4096 22038.6 706791
0 1200000 4096 24096.5 680878
0 1280000 4096 23973.1 839826
0 1360000 4096 24761.9 779486
0 1440000 4096 25467.7 976022
0 1520000 4096 25338.7 935552
0 1600000 4096 27484.8 683351
0 1680000 4096 24383.2 3039781
0 1760000 4096 24857.0 2657008
<maintains 13-26k files/s all the way to the end .... >
0 9040000 4096 21438.6 4869317
0 9120000 4096 25387.1 642198
0 9200000 4096 26815.9 727763
0 9280000 4096 25175.5 4458811
0 9360000 4096 19832.8 982122
0 9440000 4096 17643.8 805599
0 9520000 4096 13923.4 7819152
0 9600000 4096 18101.3 1071163
real 7m7.926s
user 0m57.976s
sys 14m14.620s
The baseline of no plugging is a full 3 minutes faster than the
plugging behaviour of Linus' patch. The IO behaviour demonstrates
that, sustaining between 25-30,000 IOPS and throughput of
130-150MB/s. Hence, while Linus' patch does change the IO patterns,
it does not result in a performance improvement like the original
plugging patch did.
So I went back and had a look at my original patch, which I've been
using locally for a couple of years and was similar to the original
commit. It has this description from when I last updated the perf
numbers from testing done on 3.17:
| Test VM: 16p, 16GB RAM, 2xSSD in RAID0, 500TB sparse XFS filesystem,
| metadata CRCs enabled.
|
| Test:
|
| $ ./fs_mark -D 10000 -S0 -n 10000 -s 4096 -L 120 -d
| /mnt/scratch/0 -d /mnt/scratch/1 -d /mnt/scratch/2 -d
| /mnt/scratch/3 -d /mnt/scratch/4 -d /mnt/scratch/5 -d
| /mnt/scratch/6 -d /mnt/scratch/7
|
| Result:
| wall sys create rate Physical write IO
| time CPU (avg files/s) IOPS Bandwidth
| ----- ----- ------------- ------ ---------
| unpatched 5m54s 15m32s 32,500+/-2200 28,000 150MB/s
| patched 3m19s 13m28s 52,900+/-1800 1,500 280MB/s
| improvement -43.8% -13.3% +62.7% -94.6% +86.6%
IOWs, what we are seeing here is that the baseline writeback
performance has regressed quite significantly since I took these
numbers back on 3.17. I'm running on exactly the same test setup;
the only difference is the kernel and so the current kernel baseline
is ~20% slower than the baseline numbers I have in my patch.
So, let's put the original [broken] plugging back in:
.....
0 8960000 4096 28420.0 2129129
0 9040000 4096 26863.0 6893094
0 9120000 4096 46721.4 705927
0 9200000 4096 46384.0 1081627
0 9280000 4096 39692.3 2148938
0 9360000 4096 41976.0 3540489
0 9440000 4096 28025.1 10364440
0 9520000 4096 38580.2 2457019
0 9600000 4096 33526.1 7661316
real 5m12.114s
user 0m50.294s
sys 12m54.425s
While we get back that regression and then some more, it's still
much slower than the high level plugging on slightly older kernels.
And the performance is, again, highly variable through the midpoint
of the test run. e.g:
....
0 4720000 4096 39224.4 9401401
0 4800000 4096 25342.9 18889665
0 4880000 4096 14841.7 36668633
0 4960000 4096 27624.6 17731873
0 5040000 4096 37874.8 11390831
0 5120000 4096 29009.2 12331965
0 5200000 4096 49568.0 4346746
0 5280000 4096 83074.5 877142
0 5360000 4096 32498.8 5401470
0 5440000 4096 55468.1 3188117
0 5520000 4096 19156.0 4112120
0 5600000 4096 44894.0 3186559
....
We have a low of ~15k files/s and a high of 83k files/s whilst
averaging about 38k files/s.
IOWs, ignoring the plugging, the recent changes to the writeback
code have really screwed up writeback performance and changed the
way it behaves from a throughput consistency point of view. I'd
suggest we should start by reverting all the plugging changes for
now, because there are other problems these plugging changes have
exposed in the current writeback code that need to be fixed first...
Cheers
Dave.
PS: I was going to run this on an ext4 filesystem to check it
wasn't just XFS seeing this, but that reminded me why I don't run
this test on ext4:
FSUse% Count Size Files/sec App Overhead
5 80000 4096 211668.3 534504
5 160000 4096 191731.8 532701
5 240000 4096 196251.2 489772
5 320000 4096 207597.1 464032
5 400000 4096 121616.0 601156
5 480000 4096 197729.9 573925
<Really, really fast in memory, but background writeback starts here>
5 560000 4096 128698.4 546362
5 640000 4096 137904.3 543718
5 720000 4096 63680.9 498110
5 800000 4096 25825.9 1538213
5 880000 4096 32708.7 632235
<dirty page threshold (20% RAM) is hit here. performance sucks from
here on in (still 10GB of free RAM) because the writeback IO
pattern is a random 4k write pattern>
5 960000 4096 6940.2 7250666
5 1040000 4096 7474.8 711872
5 1120000 4096 4127.5 14034167
5 1200000 4096 4822.1 752398
....
Hence it takes about around hour to do a single run of this test on
ext4 because it's delayed allocation algorithm does not linearise
writes to small files with similar inode locality like XFS does, and
that's the behaviour that high level plugging really helps. IOws,
this specific workload does not demonstrate any significant
performance difference on ext4 with the different plugging
algorithms because it does random IO rather than sequential IO.
I also ran it on btrfs, but it's pushing peaks of 15-25,000 IOPS
every 30s regardless of whether there is plugging at a high level or
not, so again btrfs behaviour is pretty much unaffected by the high
level plugging on this workload....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists