linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Adding multiple workers to the loop device.

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: <3c2833ef-5d7f-32ae-bbb0-01d6f812a34b@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:29:11 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Muraliraja Muniraju <muraliraja.muniraju@...rik.com>
Cc:     linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Adding multiple workers to the loop device.


Please don't top post, we just lost all context here unless I had fixed
it up for you.


On 1/23/20 12:25 PM, Muraliraja Muniraju wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 10:59 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/21/20 12:25 PM, muraliraja.muniraju wrote:
>>> Current loop device implementation has a single kthread worker and
>>> drains one request at a time to completion. If the underneath device is
>>> slow then this reduces the concurrency significantly. To help in these
>>> cases, adding multiple loop workers increases the concurrency. Also to
>>> retain the old behaviour the default number of loop workers is 1 and can
>>> be tuned via the ioctl.
>>
>> Have you considered using blk-mq for this? Right now loop just does
>> some basic checks and then queues for a thread. If you bump nr_hw_queues
>> up (provide a parameter for that) and set BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING in the
>> tag flags, then that might be a more viable approach for handling this.
>
> I see that the kernel is already is using the multi queues with the
> number of hardware queues is 1. But the problem IMO is that the worker
> seems to be processing 1 request at a time, to parallelize requests
> and have more concurrency more workers needs to be added. I also tried
> increasing the nr_hw_queues without increasing the number of workers,
> I did not see any difference in performance and it stayed the same. It
> allows to queue more requests but it is processed one at a time. I
> have not tried with enabling BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING though. I see that it
> can schedule requests early.

The experiment is useless without BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING set, so you need
that at least. With that, you _will_ see work items processed in
parallel, depending on where they are queued from.

-- 
Jens Axboe