linux-kernel - Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: introduce periodic iostat io latency traces

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]

Date:   Sat, 14 Aug 2021 10:06:06 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
To:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
Cc:     Daeho Jeong <daeho43@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: introduce periodic iostat io latency
 traces

On 2021/8/14 2:56, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 08/13, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2021/8/13 4:52, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 08/11, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> Hi Daeho,
>>>>
>>>> On 2021/8/4 6:55, Daeho Jeong wrote:
>>>>> From: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@...gle.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whenever we notice some sluggish issues on our machines, we are always
>>>>> curious about how well all types of I/O in the f2fs filesystem are
>>>>> handled. But, it's hard to get this kind of real data. First of all,
>>>>> we need to reproduce the issue while turning on the profiling tool like
>>>>> blktrace, but the issue doesn't happen again easily. Second, with the
>>>>> intervention of any tools, the overall timing of the issue will be
>>>>> slightly changed and it sometimes makes us hard to figure it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I added F2FS_IOSTAT_IO_LATENCY config option to support printing out
>>>>> IO latency statistics tracepoint events which are minimal things to
>>>>> understand filesystem's I/O related behaviors. With "iostat_enable" sysfs
>>>>> node on, we can get this statistics info in a periodic way and it
>>>>> would cause the least overhead.
>>>>>
>>>>> [samples]
>>>>>     f2fs_ckpt-254:1-507     [003] ....  2842.439683: f2fs_iostat_latency:
>>>>> dev = (254,11), iotype [peak lat.(ms)/avg lat.(ms)/count],
>>>>> rd_data [136/1/801], rd_node [136/1/1704], rd_meta [4/2/4],
>>>>> wr_sync_data [164/16/3331], wr_sync_node [152/3/648],
>>>>> wr_sync_meta [160/2/4243], wr_async_data [24/13/15],
>>>>> wr_async_node [0/0/0], wr_async_meta [0/0/0]
>>>>>
>>>>>     f2fs_ckpt-254:1-507     [002] ....  2845.450514: f2fs_iostat_latency:
>>>>> dev = (254,11), iotype [peak lat.(ms)/avg lat.(ms)/count],
>>>>> rd_data [60/3/456], rd_node [60/3/1258], rd_meta [0/0/1],
>>>>> wr_sync_data [120/12/2285], wr_sync_node [88/5/428],
>>>>> wr_sync_meta [52/6/2990], wr_async_data [4/1/3],
>>>>> wr_async_node [0/0/0], wr_async_meta [0/0/0]
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@...gle.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> v2: clean up with wrappers and fix a build breakage reported by
>>>>>        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     fs/f2fs/Kconfig             |   9 +++
>>>>
>>>> I try to apply this patch in my local dev branch, but it failed due to
>>>> conflicting with below commit, it needs to rebase this patch to last dev
>>>> branch.
>>>
>>> I applied this in dev branch. Could you please check?
>>
>> Yeah, I see.
>>
>>>>> +config F2FS_IOSTAT_IO_LATENCY
>>>>> +	bool "F2FS IO statistics IO latency information"
>>>>> +	depends on F2FS_FS
>>>>> +	default n
>>>>> +	help
>>>>> +	  Support printing out periodic IO latency statistics tracepoint
>>>>> +	  events. With this, you have to turn on "iostat_enable" sysfs
>>>>> +	  node to print this out.
>>>>
>>>> This functionality looks independent, how about introuducing iostat.h
>>>> and iostat.c (not sure, maybe trace.[hc])to include newly added structure
>>>> and functions for dispersive codes cleanup.
>>
>> Thoughts? this also can avoid using CONFIG_F2FS_IOSTAT_IO_LATENCY in many places.
> 
> It seems there's somewhat dependency with iostat which is done by default.
> How about adding this by default as well in the existing iostat, and then
> covering all together by F2FS_IOSTAT?

Agreed.

Any thoughts about using separated files to maintain these independent functionality
codes? like we did in trace.[hc] previously.

Thanks,

> 
>>
>> Thanks,