From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: virtio-fs-list <virtio-fs@redhat.com>, ganesh.mahalingam@intel.com
Subject: Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH] virtiofs: Enable SB_NOSEC flag to improve small write performance
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:18:28 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200716181828.GE422759@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200716144032.GC422759@redhat.com>
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:40:33AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Ganesh Mahalingam reported that virtiofs is slow with small direct random
> writes when virtiofsd is run with cache=always.
>
> https://github.com/kata-containers/runtime/issues/2815
>
> Little debugging showed that that file_remove_privs() is called in cached
> write path on every write. And everytime it calls
> security_inode_need_killpriv() which results in call to
> __vfs_getxattr(XATTR_NAME_CAPS). And this goes to file server to fetch
> xattr. This extra round trip for every write slows down writes a lot.
>
> Normally to avoid paying this penalty on every write, vfs has the
> notion of caching this information in inode (S_NOSEC). So vfs
> sets S_NOSEC, if filesystem opted for it using super block flag
> SB_NOSEC. And S_NOSEC is cleared when setuid/setgid bit is set or
> when security xattr is set on inode so that next time a write
> happens, we check inode again for clearing setuid/setgid bits as well
> clear any security.capability xattr.
>
> This seems to work well for local file systems but for remote file
> systems it is possible that VFS does not have full picture and a
> different client sets setuid/setgid bit or security.capability xattr
> on file and that means VFS information about S_NOSEC on another client
> will be stale. So for remote filesystems SB_NOSEC was disabled by
> default.
>
> commit 9e1f1de02c2275d7172e18dc4e7c2065777611bf
> Author: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> Date: Fri Jun 3 18:24:58 2011 -0400
>
> more conservative S_NOSEC handling
>
> That commit mentioned that these filesystems can still make use of
> SB_NOSEC as long as they clear S_NOSEC when they are refreshing inode
> attriutes from server.
>
> So this patch tries to enable SB_NOSEC on fuse (regular fuse as well
> as virtiofs). And clear SB_NOSEC when we are refreshing inode attributes.
>
> We need to clear SB_NOSEC either when inode has setuid/setgid bit set
> or security.capability xattr has been set. We have the first piece of
> information available in FUSE_GETATTR response. But we don't know if
> security.capability has been set on file or not. Question is, do we
> really need to know about security.capability. file_remove_privs()
> always removes security.capability if a file is being written to. That
> means when server writes to file, security.capability should be removed
> without guest having to tell anything to it.
I am assuming that file server will clear security.capability on host
upon WRITE. Is it a fair assumption for all filesystems passthrough
virtiofsd might be running?
Vivek
>
> That means we don't have to worry about knowing if security.capability
> was set or not as long as writes by client don't get cached and go to
> server always. And server write should clear security.capability. Hence,
> I clear SB_NOSEC when writeback cache is enabled.
>
> This change improves random write performance very significantly. I
> am running virtiofsd with cache=auto and following fio command.
>
> fio --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --name=test --filename=/mnt/virtiofs/random_read_write.fio --bs=4k --iodepth=64 --size=4G --readwrite=randwrite
>
> Before this patch I get around 40MB/s and after the patch I get around
> 300MB/s bandwidth. So improvement is very significant.
>
> Note: We probably could do this change for regular fuse filesystems
> as well. But I don't know all the possible configurations supported
> so I am limiting it to virtiofs.
>
> Reported-by: "Mahalingam, Ganesh" <ganesh.mahalingam@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
> ---
> fs/fuse/inode.c | 7 +++++++
> fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/inode.c b/fs/fuse/inode.c
> index 5b4aebf5821f..5e74c818b2aa 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/inode.c
> @@ -185,6 +185,13 @@ void fuse_change_attributes_common(struct inode *inode, struct fuse_attr *attr,
> inode->i_mode &= ~S_ISVTX;
>
> fi->orig_ino = attr->ino;
> +
> + /*
> + * File server see setuid/setgid bit set. Maybe another client did
> + * it. Reset S_NOSEC.
> + */
> + if (IS_NOSEC(inode) && is_sxid(inode->i_mode))
> + inode->i_flags &= ~S_NOSEC;
> }
>
> void fuse_change_attributes(struct inode *inode, struct fuse_attr *attr,
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c
> index 4c4ef5d69298..e89628163ec4 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c
> @@ -1126,6 +1126,10 @@ static int virtio_fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb)
> /* Previous unmount will stop all queues. Start these again */
> virtio_fs_start_all_queues(fs);
> fuse_send_init(fc);
> +
> + if (!fc->writeback_cache)
> + sb->s_flags |= SB_NOSEC;
> +
> mutex_unlock(&virtio_fs_mutex);
> return 0;
>
> --
> 2.25.4
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: virtio-fs-list <virtio-fs@redhat.com>, ganesh.mahalingam@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtiofs: Enable SB_NOSEC flag to improve small write performance
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:18:28 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200716181828.GE422759@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200716144032.GC422759@redhat.com>
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:40:33AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Ganesh Mahalingam reported that virtiofs is slow with small direct random
> writes when virtiofsd is run with cache=always.
>
> https://github.com/kata-containers/runtime/issues/2815
>
> Little debugging showed that that file_remove_privs() is called in cached
> write path on every write. And everytime it calls
> security_inode_need_killpriv() which results in call to
> __vfs_getxattr(XATTR_NAME_CAPS). And this goes to file server to fetch
> xattr. This extra round trip for every write slows down writes a lot.
>
> Normally to avoid paying this penalty on every write, vfs has the
> notion of caching this information in inode (S_NOSEC). So vfs
> sets S_NOSEC, if filesystem opted for it using super block flag
> SB_NOSEC. And S_NOSEC is cleared when setuid/setgid bit is set or
> when security xattr is set on inode so that next time a write
> happens, we check inode again for clearing setuid/setgid bits as well
> clear any security.capability xattr.
>
> This seems to work well for local file systems but for remote file
> systems it is possible that VFS does not have full picture and a
> different client sets setuid/setgid bit or security.capability xattr
> on file and that means VFS information about S_NOSEC on another client
> will be stale. So for remote filesystems SB_NOSEC was disabled by
> default.
>
> commit 9e1f1de02c2275d7172e18dc4e7c2065777611bf
> Author: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> Date: Fri Jun 3 18:24:58 2011 -0400
>
> more conservative S_NOSEC handling
>
> That commit mentioned that these filesystems can still make use of
> SB_NOSEC as long as they clear S_NOSEC when they are refreshing inode
> attriutes from server.
>
> So this patch tries to enable SB_NOSEC on fuse (regular fuse as well
> as virtiofs). And clear SB_NOSEC when we are refreshing inode attributes.
>
> We need to clear SB_NOSEC either when inode has setuid/setgid bit set
> or security.capability xattr has been set. We have the first piece of
> information available in FUSE_GETATTR response. But we don't know if
> security.capability has been set on file or not. Question is, do we
> really need to know about security.capability. file_remove_privs()
> always removes security.capability if a file is being written to. That
> means when server writes to file, security.capability should be removed
> without guest having to tell anything to it.
I am assuming that file server will clear security.capability on host
upon WRITE. Is it a fair assumption for all filesystems passthrough
virtiofsd might be running?
Vivek
>
> That means we don't have to worry about knowing if security.capability
> was set or not as long as writes by client don't get cached and go to
> server always. And server write should clear security.capability. Hence,
> I clear SB_NOSEC when writeback cache is enabled.
>
> This change improves random write performance very significantly. I
> am running virtiofsd with cache=auto and following fio command.
>
> fio --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --name=test --filename=/mnt/virtiofs/random_read_write.fio --bs=4k --iodepth=64 --size=4G --readwrite=randwrite
>
> Before this patch I get around 40MB/s and after the patch I get around
> 300MB/s bandwidth. So improvement is very significant.
>
> Note: We probably could do this change for regular fuse filesystems
> as well. But I don't know all the possible configurations supported
> so I am limiting it to virtiofs.
>
> Reported-by: "Mahalingam, Ganesh" <ganesh.mahalingam@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
> ---
> fs/fuse/inode.c | 7 +++++++
> fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/inode.c b/fs/fuse/inode.c
> index 5b4aebf5821f..5e74c818b2aa 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/inode.c
> @@ -185,6 +185,13 @@ void fuse_change_attributes_common(struct inode *inode, struct fuse_attr *attr,
> inode->i_mode &= ~S_ISVTX;
>
> fi->orig_ino = attr->ino;
> +
> + /*
> + * File server see setuid/setgid bit set. Maybe another client did
> + * it. Reset S_NOSEC.
> + */
> + if (IS_NOSEC(inode) && is_sxid(inode->i_mode))
> + inode->i_flags &= ~S_NOSEC;
> }
>
> void fuse_change_attributes(struct inode *inode, struct fuse_attr *attr,
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c
> index 4c4ef5d69298..e89628163ec4 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c
> @@ -1126,6 +1126,10 @@ static int virtio_fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb)
> /* Previous unmount will stop all queues. Start these again */
> virtio_fs_start_all_queues(fs);
> fuse_send_init(fc);
> +
> + if (!fc->writeback_cache)
> + sb->s_flags |= SB_NOSEC;
> +
> mutex_unlock(&virtio_fs_mutex);
> return 0;
>
> --
> 2.25.4
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-16 18:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-16 14:40 [Virtio-fs] [PATCH] virtiofs: Enable SB_NOSEC flag to improve small write performance Vivek Goyal
2020-07-16 14:40 ` Vivek Goyal
2020-07-16 18:18 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2020-07-16 18:18 ` Vivek Goyal
2020-07-17 8:53 ` [Virtio-fs] " Miklos Szeredi
2020-07-17 8:53 ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-07-20 15:41 ` [Virtio-fs] " Vivek Goyal
2020-07-20 15:41 ` Vivek Goyal
2020-07-21 12:33 ` [Virtio-fs] " Miklos Szeredi
2020-07-21 12:33 ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-07-21 15:16 ` [Virtio-fs] " Vivek Goyal
2020-07-21 15:16 ` Vivek Goyal
2020-07-21 15:44 ` [Virtio-fs] " Miklos Szeredi
2020-07-21 15:44 ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-07-21 15:55 ` [Virtio-fs] " Vivek Goyal
2020-07-21 15:55 ` Vivek Goyal
2020-07-21 18:16 ` [Virtio-fs] " Vivek Goyal
2020-07-21 18:16 ` Vivek Goyal
2020-07-21 19:53 ` [Virtio-fs] " Miklos Szeredi
2020-07-21 19:53 ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-07-21 21:30 ` [Virtio-fs] " Vivek Goyal
2020-07-21 21:30 ` Vivek Goyal
2020-07-22 10:00 ` [Virtio-fs] " Miklos Szeredi
2020-07-22 10:00 ` Miklos Szeredi
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=20200716181828.GE422759@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=ganesh.mahalingam@intel.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=virtio-fs@redhat.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.