| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <0863d7c1-1063-2a2a-d70d-764a7580c874@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:59:39 +0800
From: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
<lkp@...ts.01.org>, <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [LKP] Re: [io_uring] 584b0180f0:
phoronix-test-suite.fio.SequentialWrite.IO_uring.Yes.Yes.1MB.DefaultTestDirectory.mb_s
-10.2% regression
Hi Jens,
On 7/21/2022 2:13 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Can you try this? It's against 5.19-rc7.
>
>
> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> index a01ea49f3017..34758e95990a 100644
> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> @@ -2015,6 +2015,64 @@ static inline void io_arm_ltimeout(struct io_kiocb *req)
> __io_arm_ltimeout(req);
> }
>
> +static bool io_bdev_nowait(struct block_device *bdev)
> +{
> + return !bdev || blk_queue_nowait(bdev_get_queue(bdev));
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * If we tracked the file through the SCM inflight mechanism, we could support
> + * any file. For now, just ensure that anything potentially problematic is done
> + * inline.
> + */
> +static bool __io_file_supports_nowait(struct file *file, umode_t mode)
> +{
> + if (S_ISBLK(mode)) {
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLOCK) &&
> + io_bdev_nowait(I_BDEV(file->f_mapping->host)))
> + return true;
> + return false;
> + }
> + if (S_ISSOCK(mode))
> + return true;
> + if (S_ISREG(mode)) {
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLOCK) &&
> + io_bdev_nowait(file->f_inode->i_sb->s_bdev) &&
> + file->f_op != &io_uring_fops)
> + return true;
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + /* any ->read/write should understand O_NONBLOCK */
> + if (file->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK)
> + return true;
> + return file->f_mode & FMODE_NOWAIT;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool io_file_supports_nowait(struct io_kiocb *req)
> +{
> + return req->flags & REQ_F_SUPPORT_NOWAIT;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * If we tracked the file through the SCM inflight mechanism, we could support
> + * any file. For now, just ensure that anything potentially problematic is done
> + * inline.
> + */
> +static unsigned int io_file_get_flags(struct file *file)
> +{
> + umode_t mode = file_inode(file)->i_mode;
> + unsigned int res = 0;
> +
> + if (S_ISREG(mode))
> + res |= FFS_ISREG;
> + if (__io_file_supports_nowait(file, mode))
> + res |= FFS_NOWAIT;
> + if (io_file_need_scm(file))
> + res |= FFS_SCM;
> + return res;
> +}
> +
> static void io_prep_async_work(struct io_kiocb *req)
> {
> const struct io_op_def *def = &io_op_defs[req->opcode];
> @@ -2031,6 +2089,9 @@ static void io_prep_async_work(struct io_kiocb *req)
> if (req->flags & REQ_F_FORCE_ASYNC)
> req->work.flags |= IO_WQ_WORK_CONCURRENT;
>
> + if (req->file && !io_req_ffs_set(req))
> + req->flags |= io_file_get_flags(req->file) << REQ_F_SUPPORT_NOWAIT_BIT;
> +
> if (req->flags & REQ_F_ISREG) {
> if (def->hash_reg_file || (ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_IOPOLL))
> io_wq_hash_work(&req->work, file_inode(req->file));
> @@ -3556,64 +3617,6 @@ static void io_iopoll_req_issued(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
> }
> }
>
> -static bool io_bdev_nowait(struct block_device *bdev)
> -{
> - return !bdev || blk_queue_nowait(bdev_get_queue(bdev));
> -}
> -
> -/*
> - * If we tracked the file through the SCM inflight mechanism, we could support
> - * any file. For now, just ensure that anything potentially problematic is done
> - * inline.
> - */
> -static bool __io_file_supports_nowait(struct file *file, umode_t mode)
> -{
> - if (S_ISBLK(mode)) {
> - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLOCK) &&
> - io_bdev_nowait(I_BDEV(file->f_mapping->host)))
> - return true;
> - return false;
> - }
> - if (S_ISSOCK(mode))
> - return true;
> - if (S_ISREG(mode)) {
> - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLOCK) &&
> - io_bdev_nowait(file->f_inode->i_sb->s_bdev) &&
> - file->f_op != &io_uring_fops)
> - return true;
> - return false;
> - }
> -
> - /* any ->read/write should understand O_NONBLOCK */
> - if (file->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK)
> - return true;
> - return file->f_mode & FMODE_NOWAIT;
> -}
> -
> -/*
> - * If we tracked the file through the SCM inflight mechanism, we could support
> - * any file. For now, just ensure that anything potentially problematic is done
> - * inline.
> - */
> -static unsigned int io_file_get_flags(struct file *file)
> -{
> - umode_t mode = file_inode(file)->i_mode;
> - unsigned int res = 0;
> -
> - if (S_ISREG(mode))
> - res |= FFS_ISREG;
> - if (__io_file_supports_nowait(file, mode))
> - res |= FFS_NOWAIT;
> - if (io_file_need_scm(file))
> - res |= FFS_SCM;
> - return res;
> -}
> -
> -static inline bool io_file_supports_nowait(struct io_kiocb *req)
> -{
> - return req->flags & REQ_F_SUPPORT_NOWAIT;
> -}
> -
> static int io_prep_rw(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe)
> {
> struct kiocb *kiocb = &req->rw.kiocb;
>
> -- Jens Axboe
This change could make regression gone. The test result is as following:
28d3a5662d44077aa6eb42bfcfa is your patch
584b0180f0f4d67d v5.19-rc7 28d3a5662d44077aa6eb42bfcfa
---------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
fail:runs %reproduction fail:runs %reproduction fail:runs
| | | | |
503:3 9297% 782:3 178% 509:3 dmesg.timestamp:last
3:3 0% 3:3 0% 3:3 pmeter.pmeter.fail
:3 100% 3:3 100% 3:3 kmsg.I/O_error,dev_loop#,sector#op#:(READ)flags#phys_seg#prio_class
:3 3755% 112:3 4016% 120:3 kmsg.timestamp:I/O_error,dev_loop#,sector#op#:(READ)flags#phys_seg#prio_class
465:3 9221% 742:3 235% 473:3 kmsg.timestamp:last
%stddev %change %stddev %change %stddev
\ | \ | \
972.00 -0.3% 968.67 +11.4% 1082 phoronix-test-suite.fio.SequentialWrite.IO_uring.Yes.Yes.1MB.DefaultTestDirectory.iops
975.00 -0.3% 972.33 +11.5% 1086 phoronix-test-suite.fio.SequentialWrite.IO_uring.Yes.Yes.1MB.DefaultTestDirectory.mb_s
Comparing to v5.19-rc7 and 584b0180f0f4d67d, it could bring 11% regression back.
Thanks.
Regards
Yin, Fengwei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists