| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20160401061610.GX11812@dastard> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 17:16:10 +1100 From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:39:25PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 03/31/2016 09:29 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>>I can't seem to reproduce this at all. On an nvme device, I get a > >>>fairly steady 60K/sec file creation rate, and we're nowhere near > >>>being IO bound. So the throttling has no effect at all. > >> > >>That's too slow to show the stalls - your likely concurrency bound > >>in allocation by the default AG count (4) from mkfs. Use mkfs.xfs -d > >>agcount=32 so that every thread works in it's own AG. > > > >That's the key, with that I get 300-400K ops/sec instead. I'll run some > >testing with this tomorrow and see what I can find, it did one full run > >now and I didn't see any issues, but I need to run it at various > >settings and see if I can find the issue. > > No stalls seen, I get the same performance with it disabled and with > it enabled, at both default settings, and lower ones > (wb_percent=20). Looking at iostat, we don't drive a lot of depth, > so it makes sense, even with the throttling we're doing essentially > the same amount of IO. Try appending numa=fake=4 to your guest's kernel command line. (that's what I'm using) > > What does 'nr_requests' say for your virtio_blk device? Looks like > virtio_blk has a queue_depth setting, but it's not set by default, > and then it uses the free entries in the ring. But I don't know what > that is... $ cat /sys/block/vdc/queue/nr_requests 128 $ Without the block throttling, guest IO (measured within the guest) looks like this over a fair proportion of the test (5s sample time) # iostat -d -x -m 5 /dev/vdc Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %util vdc 0.00 20443.00 6.20 436.60 0.05 269.89 1248.48 73.83 146.11 486.58 141.27 1.64 72.40 vdc 0.00 11567.60 19.20 161.40 0.05 146.08 1657.12 119.17 704.57 707.25 704.25 5.34 96.48 vdc 0.00 12723.20 3.20 437.40 0.05 193.65 900.38 29.46 57.12 1.75 57.52 0.78 34.56 vdc 0.00 1739.80 22.40 426.80 0.05 123.62 563.86 23.44 62.51 79.89 61.59 1.01 45.28 vdc 0.00 12553.80 0.00 521.20 0.00 210.86 828.54 34.38 65.96 0.00 65.96 0.97 50.80 vdc 0.00 12523.60 25.60 529.60 0.10 201.94 745.29 52.24 77.73 0.41 81.47 1.14 63.20 vdc 0.00 5419.80 22.40 502.60 0.05 158.34 617.90 24.42 63.81 30.96 65.27 1.31 68.80 vdc 0.00 12059.00 0.00 439.60 0.00 174.85 814.59 30.91 70.27 0.00 70.27 0.72 31.76 vdc 0.00 7578.00 25.60 397.00 0.10 139.18 675.00 15.72 37.26 61.19 35.72 0.73 30.72 vdc 0.00 9156.00 0.00 537.40 0.00 173.57 661.45 17.08 29.62 0.00 29.62 0.53 28.72 vdc 0.00 5274.80 22.40 377.60 0.05 136.42 698.77 26.17 68.33 186.96 61.30 1.53 61.36 vdc 0.00 9407.00 3.20 541.00 0.05 174.28 656.05 36.10 66.33 3.00 66.71 0.87 47.60 vdc 0.00 8687.20 22.40 410.40 0.05 150.98 714.70 39.91 92.21 93.82 92.12 1.39 60.32 vdc 0.00 8872.80 0.00 422.60 0.00 139.28 674.96 25.01 33.03 0.00 33.03 0.91 38.40 vdc 0.00 1081.60 22.40 241.00 0.05 68.88 535.97 10.78 82.89 137.86 77.79 2.25 59.20 vdc 0.00 9826.80 0.00 445.00 0.00 167.42 770.49 45.16 101.49 0.00 101.49 1.80 79.92 vdc 0.00 7394.00 22.40 447.60 0.05 157.34 685.83 18.06 38.42 77.64 36.46 1.46 68.48 vdc 0.00 9984.80 3.20 252.00 0.05 108.46 870.82 85.68 293.73 16.75 297.24 3.00 76.64 vdc 0.00 0.00 22.40 454.20 0.05 117.67 505.86 8.11 39.51 35.71 39.70 1.17 55.76 vdc 0.00 10273.20 0.00 418.80 0.00 156.76 766.57 90.52 179.40 0.00 179.40 1.85 77.52 vdc 0.00 5650.00 22.40 185.00 0.05 84.12 831.20 103.90 575.15 60.82 637.42 4.21 87.36 vdc 0.00 7193.00 0.00 308.80 0.00 120.71 800.56 63.77 194.35 0.00 194.35 2.24 69.12 vdc 0.00 4460.80 9.80 211.00 0.03 69.52 645.07 72.35 154.81 269.39 149.49 4.42 97.60 vdc 0.00 683.00 14.00 374.60 0.05 99.13 522.69 25.38 167.61 603.14 151.33 1.45 56.24 vdc 0.00 7140.20 1.80 275.20 0.03 104.53 773.06 85.25 202.67 32.44 203.79 2.80 77.68 vdc 0.00 6916.00 0.00 164.00 0.00 82.59 1031.33 126.20 813.60 0.00 813.60 6.10 100.00 vdc 0.00 2255.60 22.40 359.00 0.05 107.41 577.06 42.97 170.03 92.79 174.85 2.17 82.64 vdc 0.00 7580.40 3.20 370.40 0.05 128.32 703.70 60.19 134.11 15.00 135.14 1.64 61.36 vdc 0.00 6438.40 18.80 159.20 0.04 78.04 898.36 126.80 706.27 639.15 714.19 5.62 100.00 vdc 0.00 5420.00 3.60 315.40 0.01 108.87 699.07 20.80 78.54 580.00 72.81 1.03 32.72 vdc 0.00 9444.00 2.60 242.40 0.00 118.72 992.38 126.21 488.66 146.15 492.33 4.08 100.00 vdc 0.00 0.00 19.80 434.60 0.05 110.14 496.65 12.74 57.56 313.78 45.89 1.10 49.84 vdc 0.00 14108.20 3.20 549.60 0.05 207.84 770.17 42.32 69.66 72.75 69.64 1.40 77.20 vdc 0.00 1306.40 35.20 268.20 0.08 78.74 532.08 30.84 114.22 175.07 106.24 2.02 61.20 vdc 0.00 14999.40 0.00 458.60 0.00 192.03 857.57 61.48 134.02 0.00 134.02 1.67 76.80 vdc 0.00 1.40 22.40 331.80 0.05 82.11 475.11 1.74 4.87 22.68 3.66 0.76 26.96 vdc 0.00 13971.80 0.00 670.20 0.00 248.26 758.63 34.45 51.37 0.00 51.37 1.04 69.52 vdc 0.00 7033.00 22.60 205.80 0.06 87.81 787.86 40.95 128.53 244.64 115.78 2.90 66.24 vdc 0.00 1282.00 3.20 456.00 0.05 123.21 549.74 14.56 46.99 21.00 47.17 1.42 65.20 vdc 0.00 9475.80 22.40 248.60 0.05 107.66 814.02 123.94 412.61 376.64 415.86 3.69 100.00 vdc 0.00 3603.60 0.00 418.80 0.00 133.32 651.94 71.28 210.08 0.00 210.08 1.77 74.00 You can see hat there are periods where it drives the request queue depth to congestion, but most of the time the device is only 60-70% utilised and the queue depths are only 30-40 deep. THere's quite a lot of idle time in the request queue. Note that there are a couple of points where merging stops completely - that's when memory reclaim is directly flushing dirty inodes because if all we have is cached inodes then we have toi throttle memory allocation back to the rate we at which we can clean dirty inodes. Throughput does drop when this happens, but because the device has idle overhead and spare request queue space, these less than optimal IO dispatch spikes don't really affect throughput because the device has the capacity available to soak them up without dropping performance. An equivalent trace from the middle of a run with block throttling enabled: Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %util vdc 0.00 5143.40 22.40 188.00 0.05 81.04 789.38 19.17 89.09 237.86 71.37 4.75 99.92 vdc 0.00 7182.60 0.00 272.60 0.00 116.74 877.06 15.50 57.91 0.00 57.91 3.66 99.84 vdc 0.00 3732.80 11.60 102.20 0.01 53.17 957.05 19.35 151.47 514.00 110.32 8.79 100.00 vdc 0.00 0.00 10.80 1007.20 0.04 104.33 209.98 10.22 12.49 457.85 7.71 0.92 93.44 vdc 0.00 0.00 0.40 822.80 0.01 47.58 118.40 9.39 11.21 10.00 11.21 1.22 100.24 vdc 0.00 0.00 1.00 227.00 0.02 3.55 32.00 0.22 1.54 224.00 0.56 0.48 11.04 vdc 0.00 11100.40 3.20 437.40 0.05 125.91 585.49 7.95 17.77 47.25 17.55 1.56 68.56 vdc 0.00 14134.20 22.40 453.20 0.05 191.26 823.85 15.99 32.91 73.07 30.92 2.09 99.28 vdc 0.00 6667.00 0.00 265.20 0.00 105.11 811.70 15.71 58.98 0.00 58.98 3.77 100.00 vdc 0.00 6243.40 22.40 259.00 0.05 101.23 737.11 17.53 62.97 115.21 58.45 3.55 99.92 vdc 0.00 5590.80 0.00 278.20 0.00 105.30 775.18 18.09 65.55 0.00 65.55 3.59 100.00 vdc 0.00 0.00 14.20 714.80 0.02 97.81 274.86 11.61 12.86 260.85 7.93 1.23 89.44 vdc 0.00 0.00 9.80 1555.00 0.05 126.19 165.22 5.41 4.91 267.02 3.26 0.53 82.96 vdc 0.00 0.00 3.00 816.80 0.05 22.32 55.89 6.07 7.39 256.00 6.48 1.05 85.84 vdc 0.00 11172.80 0.20 463.00 0.00 125.77 556.10 6.13 13.23 260.00 13.13 0.93 43.28 vdc 0.00 9563.00 22.40 324.60 0.05 119.66 706.55 15.50 38.45 10.39 40.39 2.88 99.84 vdc 0.00 5333.60 0.00 218.00 0.00 83.71 786.46 15.57 80.46 0.00 80.46 4.59 100.00 vdc 0.00 5128.00 24.80 216.60 0.06 85.31 724.28 19.18 79.84 193.13 66.87 4.12 99.52 vdc 0.00 2746.40 0.00 257.40 0.00 81.13 645.49 11.16 43.70 0.00 43.70 3.87 99.68 vdc 0.00 0.00 0.00 418.80 0.00 104.68 511.92 5.33 12.74 0.00 12.74 1.93 80.96 vdc 0.00 8102.00 0.20 291.60 0.00 108.79 763.59 3.09 10.60 20.00 10.59 0.87 25.44 The first thing to note is the device utilisation is almost always above 80%, and often at 100%, meaning with throttling the device always has IO in flight. It's got no real idle time to soak up peaks of IO activity - throttling means the device is running at close to 100% utilisation all the time under worklaods like this, and there's not elasticity in the pipeline to handle changes in IO dispatch behaviour. So when memory reclaim does direct inode writeback, we see merging stop, but the request queue is not able to soak up all the IO being dispatched, even though there is very little read IO demand. hence changes in the dispatch patterns that would drive deeper queues and maintain performance will now get throttled, resulting in things like memory reclaim backing up a lot and everything on the machine suffering. I'll try the "don't throttle REQ_META" patch, but this seems like a fragile way to solve this problem - it shuts up the messenger, but doesn't solve the problem for any other subsystem that might have a similer issue. e.g. next we're going to have to make sure direct IO (which is also REQ_WRITE dispatch) does not get throttled, and so on.... It seems to me that the right thing to do here is add a separate classification flag for IO that can be throttled. e.g. as REQ_WRITEBACK and only background writeback work sets this flag. That would ensure that when the IO is being dispatched from other sources (e.g. fsync, sync_file_range(), direct IO, filesystem metadata, etc) it is clear that it is not a target for throttling. This would also allow us to easily switch off throttling if writeback is occurring for memory reclaim reasons, and so on. Throttling policy decisions belong above the block layer, even though the throttle mechanism itself is in the block layer. FWIW, this is analogous to REQ_READA, which tells the block layer that a read is not important and can be discarded if there is too much load. Policy is set at the layer that knows whether the IO can be discarded safely, the mechanism is implemented at a lower layer that knows about load, scheduling and other things the higher layers know nothing about. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists