Message-ID: <CAMz4kuL3qE-jE14F6ovAMRv6D-UFCdtiyUyi4ZDo+Lkr7_nA0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Dec 2015 10:56:21 +0800
From:	Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
To:	Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	keith.busch@...el.com, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>, neilb@...e.com,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@...hat.com, "Garg, Dinesh" <dineshg@...cinc.com>,
	tj@...nel.org, bart.vanassche@...disk.com, jmoyer@...hat.com,
	Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Introduce the request handling for dm-crypt

On 3 December 2015 at 03:56, Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:46:54PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> These are the benchmarks for request based dm-crypt. Please check it.
>
> Now please put request-based dm-crypt completely to one side and focus
> just on the existing bio-based code.  Why is it slower and what can be
> adjusted to improve this?
>

OK. I think I find something need to be point out.
1. From the IO block size test in the performance report, for the
request based, we can find it can not get the corresponding
performance if we just expand the IO size. Because In dm crypt, it
will map the data buffer of one request with scatterlists, and send
all scatterlists of one request to the encryption engine to encrypt or
decrypt.  I found if the scatterlist list number is small and each
scatterlist length is bigger, it will improve the encryption speed,
that helps the engine palys best performance. But a big IO size does
not mean bigger scatterlists (maybe many scatterlists with small
length), that's why we can not get the corresponding performance if we
just expand the IO size I think.

2. Why bio based is slower?
If you understand 1, you can obviously understand the crypto engine
likes bigger scatterlists to improve the performance. But for bio
based, it only send one scatterlist (the scatterlist's length is
always '1 << SECTOR_SHIFT' = 512) to the crypto engine at one time. It
means if the bio size is 1M, the bio based will send 2048 times (evey
time the only one scatterlist length is 512 bytes) to crypto engine to
handle, which is more time-consuming and ineffective for the crypto
engine. But for request based, it can map the whole request with many
scatterlists (not just one scatterlist), and send all the scatterlists
to the crypto engine which can improve the performance, is it right?

Another optimization solution I think is we can expand the scatterlist
entry number for bio based.

> People aren't going to take a request-based solution seriously until
> you can explain in full detail *why* bio-based is slower AND why it's
> impossible to improve its performance.
>
>> For request based things, some sequential bios/requests can merged
>> into one request to expand the IO size to be a big block handled by
>> hardware engine at one time.
>
> Bio-based also merges I/O so that does not provide justification.
> Investigate in much more detail the actual merging and scheduling
> involved in the cases you need to optimise.  See if blktrace gives you
> any clues, or add your own instrumentation.  You could even look at some
> of the patches we've had in the list archives for optimising bio-based
> crypt in different situations.
>
> Alasdair
>



-- 
Baolin.wang
Best Regards
--
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