linux-kernel - Re: [linus:master] [shmem] a2e459555c: aim9.disk_src.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]

Date:   Wed, 13 Sep 2023 17:45:25 +0000
From:   Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
CC:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        "Sang, Oliver" <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
        "oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev" <oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev>,
        lkp <lkp@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        "Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@...el.com>,
        Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [shmem]  a2e459555c:  aim9.disk_src.ops_per_sec
 -19.0% regression



> On Sep 12, 2023, at 12:01 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:14:42PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
>>> Well that's the problem. Since I can't run the reproducer, there's
>>> nothing I can do to troubleshoot the problem myself.
>> 
>> We dug more into the perf and other profiling data from 0Day server
>> running this case, and it seems that the new simple_offset_add()
>> called by shmem_mknod() brings extra cost related with slab,
>> specifically the 'radix_tree_node', which cause the regression.
>> 
>> Here is some slabinfo diff for commit a2e459555c5f and its parent:
>> 
>> 23a31d87645c6527 a2e459555c5f9da3e619b7e47a6 
>> ---------------- --------------------------- 
>> 
>>     26363           +40.2%      36956        slabinfo.radix_tree_node.active_objs
>>    941.00           +40.4%       1321        slabinfo.radix_tree_node.active_slabs
>>     26363           +40.3%      37001        slabinfo.radix_tree_node.num_objs
>>    941.00           +40.4%       1321        slabinfo.radix_tree_node.num_slabs
> 
> I can't find the benchmark source, but my suspicion is that this
> creates and deletes a lot of files in a directory.  The 'stable
> directory offsets' series uses xa_alloc_cyclic(), so we'll end up
> with a very sparse radix tree.  ie it'll look something like this:
> 
> 0 - "."
> 1 - ".."
> 6 - "d"
> 27 - "y"
> 4000 - "fzz"
> 65537 - "czzz"
> 643289767 - "bzzzzzz"
> 
> (i didn't work out the names precisely here, but this is approximately
> what you'd get if you create files a-z, aa-zz, aaa-zzz, etc and delete
> almost all of them)
> 
> The radix tree does not handle this well.  It'll allocate one node for:
> 
> entries 0-63 (covers the first 4 entries)
> entries 0-4095
> entries 3968-4031 (the first 5)
> entries 0-262143
> entries 65536-69631
> entries 65536-65599 (the first 6)
> entries 0-16777215
> entries 0-1073741823
> entries 637534208-654311423
> entries 643039232-643301375
> entries 643289088-643293183
> entries 643289728-643289791 (all 7)
> 
> That ends up being 12 nodes (you get 7 nodes per page) to store 7
> pointers.

I'm able to run the reproducer Feng provided. simple_offset_add()
nearly doubles the cost of shmem_mknod() thanks to the memory
allocations done in xas_create().

However, tmpfs is already fast compared to persistent filesystems.
For instance, even with the simple_offset patch applied:

tmpfs: 158079.00 Directory Searches/second
btrfs: 64978.88 Directory Searches/second


> Admittedly to get here, you have to do 643289765 creations
> and nearly as many deletions, so are we going to see it in a
> non-benchmark situation?

Most directories in a tmpfs have a limited lifespan and thus are
unlikely to live long enough to be affected by this issue. The
only one that has a rather unlimited lifespan is the root
directory.

It's hard for me to tell whether this is a pervasive problem
or one we can live with until we find a more suitable data
structure. IMO the benefit of having stable directory offsets
far outweighs the eventual slow down in the root directory.


--
Chuck Lever