| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 19:22:55 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <qi.zheng@...ux.dev>
To: RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev, lkp@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...ru>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
ying.huang@...el.com, feng.tang@...el.com, fengwei.yin@...el.com,
Yujie Liu <yujie.liu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [mm] f95bdb700b: stress-ng.ramfs.ops_per_sec
-88.8% regression
On 2023/5/24 19:08, Qi Zheng wrote:
>
[...]
>
> Well, I just ran the following command and reproduced the result:
>
> stress-ng --timeout 60 --times --verify --metrics-brief --ramfs 9 &
>
> 1) with commit 42c9db3970483:
>
> stress-ng: info: [11023] setting to a 60 second run per stressor
> stress-ng: info: [11023] dispatching hogs: 9 ramfs
> stress-ng: info: [11023] stressor bogo ops real time usr time
> sys time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s
> stress-ng: info: [11023] (secs) (secs)
> (secs) (real time) (usr+sys time)
> stress-ng: info: [11023] ramfs 774966 60.00 10.18
> 169.45 12915.89 4314.26
> stress-ng: info: [11023] for a 60.00s run time:
> stress-ng: info: [11023] 1920.11s available CPU time
> stress-ng: info: [11023] 10.18s user time ( 0.53%)
> stress-ng: info: [11023] 169.44s system time ( 8.82%)
> stress-ng: info: [11023] 179.62s total time ( 9.35%)
> stress-ng: info: [11023] load average: 8.99 2.69 0.93
> stress-ng: info: [11023] successful run completed in 60.00s (1 min,
> 0.00 secs)
>
> 2) with commit f95bdb700bc6b:
>
> stress-ng: info: [37676] dispatching hogs: 9 ramfs
> stress-ng: info: [37676] stressor bogo ops real time usr time
> sys time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s
> stress-ng: info: [37676] (secs) (secs)
> (secs) (real time) (usr+sys time)
> stress-ng: info: [37676] ramfs 168673 60.00 1.61
> 39.66 2811.08 4087.47
> stress-ng: info: [37676] for a 60.10s run time:
> stress-ng: info: [37676] 1923.36s available CPU time
> stress-ng: info: [37676] 1.60s user time ( 0.08%)
> stress-ng: info: [37676] 39.66s system time ( 2.06%)
> stress-ng: info: [37676] 41.26s total time ( 2.15%)
> stress-ng: info: [37676] load average: 7.69 3.63 2.36
> stress-ng: info: [37676] successful run completed in 60.10s (1 min,
> 0.10 secs)
>
> The bogo ops/s (real time) did drop significantly.
>
> And the memory reclaimation was not triggered in the whole process. so
> theoretically no one is in the read critical section of shrinker_srcu.
>
> Then I found that some stress-ng-ramfs processes were in
> TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state for a long time:
>
> root 42313 0.0 0.0 69592 2068 pts/0 S 19:00 0:00
> stress-ng-ramfs [run]
> root 42314 0.0 0.0 69592 2068 pts/0 S 19:00 0:00
> stress-ng-ramfs [run]
> root 42315 0.0 0.0 69592 2068 pts/0 S 19:00 0:00
> stress-ng-ramfs [run]
> root 42316 0.0 0.0 69592 2068 pts/0 S 19:00 0:00
> stress-ng-ramfs [run]
> root 42317 7.8 0.0 69592 1812 pts/0 D 19:00 0:02
> stress-ng-ramfs [run]
> root 42318 0.0 0.0 69592 2068 pts/0 S 19:00 0:00
> stress-ng-ramfs [run]
> root 42319 7.8 0.0 69592 1812 pts/0 D 19:00 0:02
> stress-ng-ramfs [run]
> root 42320 0.0 0.0 69592 2068 pts/0 S 19:00 0:00
> stress-ng-ramfs [run]
> root 42321 7.8 0.0 69592 1812 pts/0 D 19:00 0:02
> stress-ng-ramfs [run]
> root 42322 0.0 0.0 69592 2068 pts/0 S 19:00 0:00
> stress-ng-ramfs [run]
> root 42323 7.8 0.0 69592 1812 pts/0 D 19:00 0:02
> stress-ng-ramfs [run]
> root 42324 0.0 0.0 69592 2068 pts/0 S 19:00 0:00
> stress-ng-ramfs [run]
> root 42325 7.8 0.0 69592 1812 pts/0 D 19:00 0:02
> stress-ng-ramfs [run]
> root 42326 0.0 0.0 69592 2068 pts/0 S 19:00 0:00
> stress-ng-ramfs [run]
> root 42327 7.9 0.0 69592 1812 pts/0 D 19:00 0:02
> stress-ng-ramfs [run]
> root 42328 7.9 0.0 69592 1812 pts/0 D 19:00 0:02
> stress-ng-ramfs [run]
> root 42329 7.9 0.0 69592 1812 pts/0 D 19:00 0:02
> stress-ng-ramfs [run]
> root 42330 7.9 0.0 69592 1556 pts/0 D 19:00 0:02
> stress-ng-ramfs [run]
>
> Their call stack is as follows:
>
> cat /proc/42330/stack
>
> [<0>] __synchronize_srcu.part.21+0x83/0xb0
> [<0>] unregister_shrinker+0x85/0xb0
> [<0>] deactivate_locked_super+0x27/0x70
> [<0>] cleanup_mnt+0xb8/0x140
> [<0>] task_work_run+0x65/0x90
> [<0>] exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x1ba/0x1c0
> [<0>] syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x1b/0x40
> [<0>] do_syscall_64+0x44/0x80
> [<0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
>
> + RCU folks, Is this result as expected? I would have thought that
> synchronize_srcu() should return quickly if no one is in the read
> critical section. :(
>
I received the message:
BOUNCE rcu@...r.kernel.org: Message too long (>100000 chars)
So add RCU folks again.
--
Thanks,
Qi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists