linux-kernel - Re: dm-crypt performance regression due to workqueue changes

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: <ZoGSJWMD9v1BxUDb@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 07:13:09 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>,
	Laurence Oberman <loberman@...hat.com>,
	Jonathan Brassow <jbrassow@...hat.com>,
	Ming Lei <minlei@...hat.com>, Ondrej Kozina <okozina@...hat.com>,
	Milan Broz <gmazyland@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: dm-crypt performance regression due to workqueue changes

Hello,

On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 08:15:56PM +0200, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> With 6.5, we get 3600MiB/s; with 6.6 we get 1400MiB/s.
> 
> The reason is that virt-manager by default sets up a topology where we 
> have 16 sockets, 1 core per socket, 1 thread per core. And that workqueue 
> patch avoids moving work items across sockets, so it processes all 
> encryption work only on one virtual CPU.
> 
> The performance degradation may be fixed with "echo 'system'
> >/sys/module/workqueue/parameters/default_affinity_scope" - but it is 
> regression anyway, as many users don't know about this option.
> 
> How should we fix it? There are several options:
> 1. revert back to 'numa' affinity
> 2. revert to 'numa' affinity only if we are in a virtual machine
> 3. hack dm-crypt to set the 'numa' affinity for the affected workqueues
> 4. any other solution?

Do you happen to know why libvirt is doing that? There are many other
implications to configuring the system that way and I don't think we want to
design kernel behaviors to suit topology information fed to VMs which can be
arbitrary.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun