linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] [lkp] [xfs] 68a9f5e700: aim7.jobs-per-min -13.6% regression

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

Date:	Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:15:47 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:	Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, LKP <lkp@...org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [xfs] 68a9f5e700: aim7.jobs-per-min -13.6% regression

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> But I'll try to see what happens
> on my profile, even if I can't recreate the contention itself, just
> trying to see what happens inside of that region.

Yeah, since I run my machines on encrypted disks, my profile shows 60%
kthread, but that's just because 55% is crypto.

I only have 5% in kswapd. And the spinlock doesn't even show up for me
(but "__delete_from_page_cache()" does, which doesn't look
unreasonable).

And while the biggest reason the spinlock doesn't show up is likely
simply my single-node "everything is on one die", I still think the
lower kswapd CPU use might be partly due to the node-vs-zone thing.

For me, with just one node, the new

            test_bit(PGDAT_WRITEBACK, &pgdat->flags)) {

ends up being very similar to what we used to have before, ie

            test_bit(ZONE_WRITEBACK, &zone->flags)) {

but on a multi-node machine it would be rather different.

So I might never see contention anyway.

The basic logic in shrink_swap_list() goes back to commit 283aba9f9e0
("mm: vmscan: block kswapd if it is encountering pages under
writeback") but it has been messed around with a lot (and something
else existed there before - we've always had some "throttle kswapd so
that it doesn't use insane amounts of CPU time").

DaveC - does the spinlock contention go away if you just go back to
4.7? If so, I think it's the new zone thing. But it would be good to
verify - maybe it's something entirely different and it goes back much
further.

Mel - I may be barking up entirely the wrong tree, but it would be
good if you could take a look just in case this is actually it.

                  Linus