linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Composefs: an opportunistically sharing verified image filesystem

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: <bb87534811ecd092bbc6d361df9d02aff35b17ed.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 01 Feb 2023 10:52:44 +0100
From:   Alexander Larsson <alexl@...hat.com>
To:     Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc:     Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>, gscrivan@...hat.com,
        brauner@...nel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, david@...morbit.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Composefs: an opportunistically sharing verified
 image filesystem

On Wed, 2023-02-01 at 16:59 +0800, Jingbo Xu wrote:
> 
> I redid the test with suggestion from Amir, with all files inside the
> erofs layer are redirected to the same lower block, e.g.
> "/objects/00/014430a0b489d101c8a103ef829dd258448a13eb48b4d1e9ff0731d1
> e82b92".
> 
> The result is shown in the fourth line.
> 
>                                   | uncached(ms)| cached(ms)
> ----------------------------------|-------------|-----------
> composefs (with digest)           | 326         | 135
> erofs (w/o -T0)                   | 264         | 172
> erofs (w/o -T0) + overlayfs       | 651         | 238
> erofs (hacked and redirect to one |             |
> lower block) + overlayfs          | 400         | 230
> 
> It seems that the "lazy lookup" in overlayfs indeed optimizes in this
> situation.
> 
> 
> The performance gap in cached situation (especially comparing
> composefs
> and standalone erofs) is still under investigation and I will see if
> there's any hint by perf diff.

The fact that plain erofs is faster than composefs uncached, but slower
cached is very strange. Also, see my other mail where erofs+ovl cached
is slower than squashfs+ovl cached for me. Something seems to be off
with the cached erofs case...


-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=
 Alexander Larsson                                            Red Hat,
Inc 
       alexl@...hat.com            alexander.larsson@...il.com 
He's a sword-wielding alcoholic barbarian She's a pregnant snooty nun
who 
dreams of becoming Elvis. They fight crime!