linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/6] Add roundrobin raid1 read policy

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: <20210210140015.GE23499@wotan.suse.de>
Date:   Wed, 10 Feb 2021 14:00:15 +0000
From:   Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@...e.de>
To:     Anand Jain <anand.jain@...cle.com>
Cc:     Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        "open list:BTRFS FILE SYSTEM" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/6] Add roundrobin raid1 read policy

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:18:53PM +0000, Michal Rostecki wrote:
> > These patches look good. But as only round-robin policy requires
> > to monitor the inflight and last-offset. Could you bring them under
> > if policy=roundrobin? Otherwise, it is just a waste of CPU cycles
> > if the policy != roundrobin.
> > 
> 
> If I bring those stats under if policy=roundrobin, they are going to be
> inaccurate if someone switches policies on the running system, after
> doing any I/O in that filesystem.
> 
> I'm open to suggestions how can I make those stats as lightweight as
> possible. Unfortunately, I don't think I can store the last physical
> location without atomic_t.
> 
> The BIO percpu counter is probably the least to be worried about, though
> I could maybe get rid of it entirely in favor of using part_stat_read().
> 

Actually, after thinking about that more, I'm wondering if I should just
drop the last-offset stat and penalty mechanism entirely. They seem to
improve performance slightly only on mixed workloads (thought I need to
check if that's the case in all-SDD od all NVMe arrays), but still
perform worse than policies that you proposed.

Maybe it'd be better if I just focus on getting the best performance on
non-mixed environments in my policy and thus stick to the simple
`inflight < queue_depth` check...

Thanks,
Michal