linux-kernel - [PATCH 2/2] 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <149758932925.10006.1411305319375332201.stgit@noble>
Date:   Fri, 16 Jun 2017 15:02:09 +1000
From:   NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] 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.

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
---
 drivers/block/loop.c |    8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index 9c457ca6c55e..6ed7c4506951 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -843,10 +843,16 @@ static void loop_unprepare_queue(struct loop_device *lo)
 	kthread_stop(lo->worker_task);
 }

+static int loop_kthread_worker_fn(void *worker_ptr)
+{
+	current->flags |= PF_LESS_THROTTLE;
+	return kthread_worker_fn(worker_ptr);
+}
+
 static int loop_prepare_queue(struct loop_device *lo)
 {
 	kthread_init_worker(&lo->worker);
-	lo->worker_task = kthread_run(kthread_worker_fn,
+	lo->worker_task = kthread_run(loop_kthread_worker_fn,
 			&lo->worker, "loop%d", lo->lo_number);
 	if (IS_ERR(lo->worker_task))
 		return -ENOMEM;