linux-kernel - Re: [ata] 0568e61225: stress-ng.copy-file.ops_per

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: <16f03f81-a8c7-bacf-c74c-67231f7f7202@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 15:16:52 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
        kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
CC:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Linux Memory Management List" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>, <lkp@...ts.01.org>, <lkp@...el.com>,
        <ying.huang@...el.com>, <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        <zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com>, <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [ata] 0568e61225: stress-ng.copy-file.ops_per_sec -15.0%
 regression

On 09/08/2022 10:58, John Garry wrote:
>>>
>>> commit: 0568e6122574dcc1aded2979cd0245038efe22b6 ("ata: libata-scsi: 
>>> cap ata_device->max_sectors according to shost->max_sectors")
>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>>>
>>> in testcase: stress-ng
>>> on test machine: 96 threads 2 sockets Ice Lake with 256G memory
>>> with following parameters:
>>>
>>>     nr_threads: 10%
>>>     disk: 1HDD
>>>     testtime: 60s
>>>     fs: f2fs
>>>     class: filesystem
>>>     test: copy-file
>>>     cpufreq_governor: performance
>>>     ucode: 0xb000280
>>
>> Without knowing what the device adapter is, hard to say where the 
>> problem is. I
>> suspect that with the patch applied, we may be ending up with a small 
>> default
>> max_sectors value, causing overhead due to more commands than necessary.
>>
>> Will check what I see with my test rig.
> 
> As far as I can see, this patch should not make a difference unless the 
> ATA shost driver is setting the max_sectors value unnecessarily low.

For __ATA_BASE_SHT, we don't set max_sectors. As such, we default 
shost->max_sectors = SCSI_DEFAULT_MAX_SECTORS (=1024) in 
scsi_host_alloc(). I assume no shost dma mapping limit applied.

Then - for example - we could select dev->max_sectors = 
ATA_MAX_SECTORS_LBA48 (=65535) in ata_dev_configure().

So with commit 0568e6122574 we would have final max sectors = 1024, as 
opposed to 65535 previously. I guess that the problem is something like 
this.

If so, it seems that we would need to apply the shost dma mapping limit 
separately in ata_scsi_dev_config() and not use shost->max_sectors.

thanks,
John