linux-kernel - [PATCH] loop: Add PF_LESS_THROTTLE to block/loop device thread.

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

Message-ID: <871staffus.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
Date:   Mon, 03 Apr 2017 11:18:51 +1000
From:   NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH] loop: Add PF_LESS_THROTTLE to block/loop device thread.

When a filesystem is mounted from a loop device, writes are
throttled by balance_dirty_pages() twice: once when writing
to the filesystem and once when the loop_handle_cmd() writes
to the backing file.  This double-throttling can trigger
positive feedback loops that create significant delays.  The
throttling at the lower level is seen by the upper level as
a slow device, so it throttles extra hard.

The PF_LESS_THROTTLE flag was created to handle exactly this
circumstance, though with an NFS filesystem mounted from a
local NFS server.  It reduces the throttling on the lower
layer so that it can proceed largely unthrottled.

To demonstrate this, create a filesystem on a loop device
and write (e.g. with dd) several large files which combine
to consume significantly more than the limit set by
/proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio or dirty_bytes.  Measure the total
time taken.

When I do this directly on a device (no loop device) the
total time for several runs (mkfs, mount, write 200 files,
umount) is fairly stable: 28-35 seconds.
When I do this over a loop device the times are much worse
and less stable.  52-460 seconds.  Half below 100seconds,
half above.
When I apply this patch, the times become stable again,
though not as fast as the no-loop-back case: 53-72 seconds.

There may be room for further improvement as the total overhead still
seems too high, but this is a big improvement.

Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
---
 drivers/block/loop.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index 0ecb6461ed81..a7e1dd215fc2 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -1694,8 +1694,11 @@ static void loop_queue_work(struct kthread_work *work)
 {
 	struct loop_cmd *cmd =
 		container_of(work, struct loop_cmd, work);
+	int oldflags = current->flags & PF_LESS_THROTTLE;

+	current->flags |= PF_LESS_THROTTLE;
 	loop_handle_cmd(cmd);
+	current->flags = (current->flags & ~PF_LESS_THROTTLE) | oldflags;
 }

 static int loop_init_request(void *data, struct request *rq,
-- 
2.12.0

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)