linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: optimize truncation of shadow entries

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: <20240911210824.GA117602@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 17:08:24 -0400
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
	Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Meta kernel team <kernel-team@...a.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: optimize truncation of shadow entries

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 10:38:00AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> The kernel truncates the page cache in batches of PAGEVEC_SIZE. For each
> batch, it traverses the page cache tree and collects the entries (folio
> and shadow entries) in the struct folio_batch. For the shadow entries
> present in the folio_batch, it has to traverse the page cache tree for
> each individual entry to remove them. This patch optimize this by
> removing them in a single tree traversal.
> 
> On large machines in our production which run workloads manipulating
> large amount of data, we have observed that a large amount of CPUs are
> spent on truncation of very large files (100s of GiBs file sizes). More
> specifically most of time was spent on shadow entries cleanup, so
> optimizing the shadow entries cleanup, even a little bit, has good
> impact.
> 
> To evaluate the changes, we created 200GiB file on a fuse fs and in a
> memcg. We created the shadow entries by triggering reclaim through
> memory.reclaim in that specific memcg and measure the simple truncation
> operation.
> 
>  # time truncate -s 0 file
> 
>               time (sec)
> Without       5.164 +- 0.059
> With-patch    4.21  +- 0.066 (18.47% decrease)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>

Looks good to me. One thing that's a bit subtle is that the tree walk
assumes indices[] are ordered, such that indices[0] and indices[nr-1]
reliably denote the range of interest. AFAICS that's the case for the
current callers but if not that could be a painful bug to hunt down.

Assessing lowest and highest index in that first batch iteration seems
a bit overkill though. Maybe just a comment stating the requirement?

Otherwise,

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>