linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/readahead: readahead aggressively if read drops in willneed range

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: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:46:52 -0500
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/readahead: readahead aggressively if read drops
 in willneed range

On Mon, Jan 29 2024 at  5:12P -0500,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 12:19:02PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > While I'm sure this legacy application would love to not have to
> > change its code at all, I think we can all agree that we need to just
> > focus on how best to advise applications that have mixed workloads
> > accomplish efficient mmap+read of both sequential and random.
> > 
> > To that end, I heard Dave clearly suggest 2 things:
> > 
> > 1) update MADV/FADV_SEQUENTIAL to set file->f_ra.ra_pages to
> >    bdi->io_pages, not bdi->ra_pages * 2
> > 
> > 2) Have the application first issue MADV_SEQUENTIAL to convey that for
> >    the following MADV_WILLNEED is for sequential file load (so it is
> >    desirable to use larger ra_pages)
> > 
> > This overrides the default of bdi->ra_pages and _should_ provide the
> > required per-file duality of control for readahead, correct?
> 
> I just discovered MADV_POPULATE_READ - see my reply to Ming
> up-thread about that. The applicaiton should use that instead of
> MADV_WILLNEED because it gives cache population guarantees that
> WILLNEED doesn't. Then we can look at optimising the performance of
> MADV_POPULATE_READ (if needed) as there is constrained scope we can
> optimise within in ways that we cannot do with WILLNEED.

Nice find! Given commit 4ca9b3859dac ("mm/madvise: introduce
MADV_POPULATE_(READ|WRITE) to prefault page tables"), I've cc'd David
Hildenbrand just so he's in the loop.

FYI, I proactively raised feedback and questions to the reporter of
this issue:

CONTEXT: madvise(WILLNEED) doesn't convey the nature of the access,
sequential vs random, just the range that may be accessed.

Q1: Is your application's sequential vs random (or smaller sequential)
access split on a per-file basis?  Or is the same file accessed both
sequentially and randomly?

  A1: The same files can be accessed either randomly or sequentially,
  depending on certain access patterns and optimizing logic.

Q2: Can the application be changed to use madvise() MADV_SEQUENTIAL
and MADV_RANDOM to indicate its access pattern?

  A2: No, the application is a Java application. Java does not expose
  MADVISE API directly. Our application uses Java NIO API via
  MappedByteBuffer.load()
  (https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/nio/MappedByteBuffer.html#load--)
  that calls MADVISE_WILLNEED at the low level. There is no way for us
  to switch this behavior, but we take advantage of this behavior to
  optimize large file sequential I/O with great success.

So it's looking like it'll be hard to help this reporter avoid
changes... but that's not upstream's problem!

Mike