linux-kernel - Re: [bug report] iommu_dma_unmap_sg() is very slow then running IO from remote numa node

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 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]

Date:   Tue, 10 Aug 2021 10:36:47 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
CC:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [bug report] iommu_dma_unmap_sg() is very slow then running IO
 from remote numa node

On 28/07/2021 16:17, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>> Have you tried turning off the IOMMU to ensure that this is really just
>>>> an IOMMU problem?
>>>>
>>>> You can try setting CONFIG_ARM_SMMU_V3=n in the defconfig or passing
>>>> cmdline param iommu.passthrough=1 to bypass the the SMMU (equivalent to
>>>> disabling for kernel drivers).
>>> Bypassing SMMU via iommu.passthrough=1 basically doesn't make a difference
>>> on this issue.
>> A ~90% throughput drop still seems to me to be too high to be a software
>> issue. More so since I don't see similar on my system. And that throughput
>> drop does not lead to a total CPU usage drop, from the fio log.
>>
>> Do you know if anyone has run memory benchmark tests on this board to find
>> out NUMA effect? I think lmbench or stream could be used for this.
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YOhbc5C47IzC893B@T590/

Hi Ming,

Out of curiosity, did you investigate this topic any further?

And you also asked about my results earlier:

On 22/07/2021 16:54, Ming Lei wrote:
 >> [   52.035895] nvme 0000:81:00.0: Adding to iommu group 5
 >> [   52.047732] nvme nvme0: pci function 0000:81:00.0
 >> [   52.067216] nvme nvme0: 22/0/2 default/read/poll queues
 >> [   52.087318]  nvme0n1: p1
 >>
 >> So I get these results:
 >> cpu0 335K
 >> cpu32 346K
 >> cpu64 300K
 >> cpu96 300K
 >>
 >> So still not massive changes.
 > In your last email, the results are the following with irq mode io_uring:
 >
 >   cpu0  497K
 >   cpu4  307K
 >   cpu32 566K
 >   cpu64 488K
 >   cpu96 508K
 >
 > So looks you get much worse result with real io_polling?
 >

Would the expectation be that at least I get the same performance with 
io_polling here? Anything else to try which you can suggest to 
investigate this lower performance?

Thanks,
John