linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bcache: dont reset bio opf in bch_data_insert

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: <17578d50-4113-8f25-827e-840fafb09d6f@easystack.cn>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jan 2021 12:32:01 +0800
From:   Dongsheng Yang <dongsheng.yang@...ystack.cn>
To:     Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>, linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mchristi@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcache: dont reset bio opf in bch_data_insert_start


在 2021/1/25 星期一 下午 12:53, Coly Li 写道:
> On 1/25/21 12:29 PM, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
>> commit ad0d9e76(bcache: use bio op accessors) makes the bi_opf
>> modified by bio_set_op_attrs(). But there is a logical
>> problem in this commit:
>>
>>                  trace_bcache_cache_insert(k);
>>                  bch_keylist_push(&op->insert_keys);
>>
>> -               n->bi_rw |= REQ_WRITE;
>> +               bio_set_op_attrs(n, REQ_OP_WRITE, 0);
>>                  bch_submit_bbio(n, op->c, k, 0);
>>          } while (n != bio);
>>
>> The old code add REQ_WRITE into bio n and keep other flags; the
>> new code set REQ_OP_WRITE to bi_opf, but reset all other flags.
>>
>> This problem is discoverd in our performance testing:
>> (1) start a fio with 1M x 128depth for read in /dev/nvme0n1p1
>> (2) start a fio with 1M x 128depth for write in /dev/escache0 (cache
>> device is /dev/nvme0n1p2)
>>
>> We found the BW of reading is 2000+M/s, but the BW of writing is
>> 0-100M/s. After some debugging, we found the problem is io submit in
>> writting is very slow.
>>
>> bch_data_insert_start() insert a bio to /dev/nvme0n1p1, but as
>> cached_dev submit stack bio will be added into current->bio_list, and
>> return.Then __submit_bio_noacct() will submit the new bio in bio_list
>> into /dev/nvme0n1p1. This operation would be slow in
>> blk_mq_submit_bio() -> rq_qos_throttle(q, bio);
>>
>> The rq_qos_throttle() will call wbt_should_throttle(),
>> static inline bool wbt_should_throttle(struct rq_wb *rwb, struct bio *bio)
>> {
>>          switch (bio_op(bio)) {
>>          case REQ_OP_WRITE:
>>                  /*
>>                   * Don't throttle WRITE_ODIRECT
>>                   */
>>                  if ((bio->bi_opf & (REQ_SYNC | REQ_IDLE)) ==
>>                      (REQ_SYNC | REQ_IDLE))
>>                          return false;
>> ... ...
>> }
>>
>> As the bio_set_op_attrs() reset the (REQ_SYNC | REQ_IDLE), so this write
>> bio will be considered as non-direct write.
>>
>> After this fix, bio to nvme will flaged as (REQ_SYNC | REQ_IDLE),
>> then fio for writing will get about 1000M/s bandwidth.
>>
>> Fixes: ad0d9e76a4124708dddd00c04fc4b56fc86c02d6
> It should be,
> Fixes: ad0d9e76a412 ("bcache: use bio op accessors")
>
>> Signed-off-by: Dongsheng Yang<dongsheng.yang@...ystack.cn>
> Please CC the fixed patch author  Mike Christie<mchristi@...hat.com>.


Hi Coly,

     Should I send a V2 for commit message update?

Or you can help to fix it when you take it from maillist?


Thanx

Yang

>> ---
>>   drivers/md/bcache/request.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/request.c b/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
>> index c7cadaafa947..eb734f7ddaac 100644
>> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
>> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
>> @@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ static void bch_data_insert_start(struct closure *cl)
>>   		trace_bcache_cache_insert(k);
>>   		bch_keylist_push(&op->insert_keys);
>>   
>> -		bio_set_op_attrs(n, REQ_OP_WRITE, 0);
>> +		n->bi_opf |= REQ_OP_WRITE;
>>   		bch_submit_bbio(n, op->c, k, 0);
>>   	} while (n != bio);
> The fix is OK to me, I'd like to see opinion from Mike Christie too.
>
> Thanks for the catch.
>
> Coly Li