linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: mballoc - limit scanning of uninitialized groups

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:   Thu, 21 May 2020 12:34:29 +0530
From:   Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Alex Zhuravlev <azhuravlev@...mcloud.com>,
        "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: mballoc - limit scanning of uninitialized
 groups



On 5/20/20 3:15 PM, Alex Zhuravlev wrote:
> cr=0 is supposed to be an optimization to save CPU cycles, but if
> buddy data (in memory) is not initialized then all this makes no
> sense as we have to do sync IO taking a lot of cycles.
> also, at cr=0 mballoc doesn't store any available chunk. cr=1 also
> skips groups using heuristic based on avg. fragment size. it's more
> useful to skip such groups and switch to cr=2 where groups will be
> scanned for available chunks.
> 
> The goal group is not skipped to prevent allocations in foreign groups,
> which can happen after mount while buddy data is still being populated.
> 
> using sparse image and dm-slow virtual device of 120TB was simulated.
> then the image was formatted and filled using debugfs to mark ~85% of
> available space as busy. the very first allocation w/o the patch could
> not complete in half an hour (according to vmstat it would take ~10-1
> hours). with the patch applied the allocation took ~20 seconds.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alex Zhuravlev <bzzz@...mcloud.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...mcloud.com>

This looks even better to me. Feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>


> 
>   fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>   1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> index 30d5d97548c4..f719714862b5 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> @@ -1877,6 +1877,21 @@ int ext4_mb_find_by_goal(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> +static inline int ext4_mb_uninit_on_disk(struct super_block *sb,
> +				    ext4_group_t group)
> +{
> +	struct ext4_group_desc *desc;
> +
> +	if (!ext4_has_group_desc_csum(sb))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	desc = ext4_get_group_desc(sb, group, NULL);
> +	if (desc->bg_flags & cpu_to_le16(EXT4_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT))
> +		return 1;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>   /*
>    * The routine scans buddy structures (not bitmap!) from given order
>    * to max order and tries to find big enough chunk to satisfy the req
> @@ -2060,7 +2075,20 @@ static int ext4_mb_good_group(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
>   
>   	/* We only do this if the grp has never been initialized */
>   	if (unlikely(EXT4_MB_GRP_NEED_INIT(grp))) {
> -		int ret = ext4_mb_init_group(ac->ac_sb, group, GFP_NOFS);
> +		int ret;
> +
> +		/* cr=0/1 is a very optimistic search to find large
> +		 * good chunks almost for free. if buddy data is
> +		 * not ready, then this optimization makes no sense.
> +		 * instead it leads to loading (synchronously) lots
> +		 * of groups and very slow allocations.
> +		 * but don't skip the goal group to keep blocks in
> +		 * the inode's group. */
> +
> +		if (cr < 2 && !ext4_mb_uninit_on_disk(ac->ac_sb, group) &&
> +		    ac->ac_g_ex.fe_group != group)
> +			return 0;
> +		ret = ext4_mb_init_group(ac->ac_sb, group, GFP_NOFS);
>   		if (ret)
>   			return ret;
>   	}
>