fsverity.lists.linux.dev archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
To: Nathan Huckleberry <nhuck@google.com>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
	fsverity@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fsverity: Remove WQ_UNBOUND from fsverity read workqueue
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:15:15 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230311001515.2472-1-hdanton@sina.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfWY6xWhcwfV-E5brz_qvW0v-ebqp8wYhgg_ZWyD9cUp-EJg@mail.gmail.com>

On 10 Mar 2023 11:09:55 -0800 Nathan Huckleberry <nhuck@google.com>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:01=E2=80=AFAM Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com> wr=
> ote:
> >
> > On 9 Mar 2023 21:11:47 -0800 Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
> > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 01:37:41PM -0800, Nathan Huckleberry wrote:
> > > > WQ_UNBOUND causes significant scheduler latency on ARM64/Android.  Th=
> is
> > > > is problematic for latency sensitive workloads like I/O post-processi=
> ng.
> > > >
> > > > Removing WQ_UNBOUND gives a 96% reduction in fsverity workqueue relat=
> ed
> > > > scheduler latency and improves app cold startup times by ~30ms.
> > >
> > > Maybe mention that WQ_UNBOUND was recently removed from the dm-verity w=
> orkqueue
> > > too, for the same reason?
> > >
> > > I'm still amazed that it's such a big improvement!  I don't really need=
>  it to
> > > apply this patch, but it would be very interesting to know exactly why =
> the
> > > latency is so bad with WQ_UNBOUND.
> 
> My current guess for the root cause is excessing saving/restoring of
> the FPSIMD state.
> 
> > >
> > > > This code was tested by running Android app startup benchmarks and
> > > > measuring how long the fsverity workqueue spent in the ready queue.
> > > >
> > > > Before
> > > > Total workqueue scheduler latency: 553800us
> > > > After
> > > > Total workqueue scheduler latency: 18962us
> >
> > Given the gap between data above and the 15253 us in diagram[1], and
> > the SHA instructions[2], could you specify a bit on your test?
> 
> The test I'm running opens the Android messaging APK which is
> validated with fsverity. It opens the messaging app 25 times, dropping
> caches each time. The benchmark produces a Perfetto trace which we use
> to compute the scheduler latency. We sum up the amount of time that
> each fsverity worker spent in the ready state. The test in [1] is
> similar, but may be using a different APK. These tests are not in
> AOSP, so I can't share a link to them, but I would expect that fio on
> a ramdisk would produce similarly good results.

Thanks for your introduction to the test.
Are the similar results ARM64/Android specific? Could this patch help X86?
> 
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-erofs/20230106073502.4017276-1-dhavale@=
> google.com/
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAJkfWY490-m6wNubkxiTPsW59sfsQs37Wey279L=
> miRxKt7aQYg@mail.gmail.com/

      reply	other threads:[~2023-03-11  0:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-03-09 21:37 [PATCH] fsverity: Remove WQ_UNBOUND from fsverity read workqueue Nathan Huckleberry
2023-03-10  5:11 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-10  6:55   ` Hillf Danton
2023-03-10 19:09     ` Nathan Huckleberry
2023-03-11  0:15       ` Hillf Danton [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20230311001515.2472-1-hdanton@sina.com \
    --to=hdanton@sina.com \
    --cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
    --cc=fsverity@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nhuck@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).