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: <ef84d2dd-84ea-e1c7-05ef-f0a082d4f7d0@opensource.wdc.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 07:57:51 -0700
From:   Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
To:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.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 2022/08/09 7:16, John Garry wrote:
> 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.

OK. Will have a look at that.

> 
> thanks,
> John
> 


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research