linux-kernel - Re: [lkp] [xfs] fbcc025613: -5.6% fsmark.files_per

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:54:09 +0100
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	kernel test robot <ying.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>, lkp@...org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [lkp] [xfs] fbcc025613: -5.6% fsmark.files_per_sec

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 05:49:32PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> That doesn't really seem right. The writeback should be done as a
> single ioend, with a single completion, with a single setsize
> transaction, adn then all the pages are marked clean sequentially.
> The above behaviour implies we are ending up doing something like:
> 
> fsync proc		io completion
> wait on page 0
> 			end page 0 writeback
> 			wake up page 0
> wait on page 1
> 			end page 1 writeback
> 			wake up page 1
> wait on page 2
> 			end page 2 writeback
> 			wake up page 2
> 
> Though in slightly larger batches than a single page (10 wakeups a
> file, so batches of around 100 pages per wakeup?). i.e. the fsync
> IO wait appears to be racing with IO completion marking pages as
> done. I simply cannot see how the above change would cause that, as
> it was simply a change in the IO submission code that doesn't affect
> overall size or shape of the IOs being submitted.

Could this be the lack of blk plugs, which will cause us to complete
too early?