From: Milan Broz <mbroz@redhat.com>
To: "Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe" <Mario.Holbe@TU-Ilmenau.DE>,
dm-crypt@saout.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] dm-crypt: Performance Regression 2.6.37 -> 2.6.38-rc8
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 18:35:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D7668C5.5050100@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110308164508.GA8729@darkside.kls.lan>
On 03/08/2011 05:45 PM, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote:
> dm-crypt in 2.6.38 changed to per-CPU workqueues to increase it's
> performance by parallelizing encryption to multiple CPUs.
> This modification seems to cause (massive) performance drops for
> multiple parallel dm-crypt instances...
>
> I'm running a 4-disk RAID0 on top of 4 independent dm-crypt(aes-xts)
> devices on a Core2Quad 3GHz. This setup did overcome the single-CPU
> limitation from previous versions and utilized all 4 cores for
> encryption.
> The throughput of this array drops from 282MB/s sustained read (dd,
> single process) with 2.6.37.3 down to 133MB/s with 2.6.38-rc8 (which
> nearly equals to single-disk throughput of 128MB/s - just in case this
> matters).
>
> This indicates way less parallelization now with 2.6.38 than before.
> I don't think this was intentional :)
Well, it depends. I never suggested this kind of workaround because
you basically hardcoded (in device stacking) how many parallel instances
(==cpu cores ideally) of dmcrypt can run effectively.
Previously there was no cpu affinity, so dmcrypt thread simply run
on some core.
With current design the IO is encrypted by the cpu which submitted it.
If you have RAID0 it probably means that one IO is split into stripes
and these try to encrypt on the same core (in "parallel").
(I need to test what actually happens though.)
If you use one dmcrypt instance over RAID0, you will now get probably
much more better throughput. (Even with one process generating IOs
the bios are, surprisingly, submitted on different cpus. But this time
it runs really in parallel.)
Maybe we can find some compromise but I basically prefer current design,
which provides much more better behaviour for most of configurations.
Milan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-08 17:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-08 16:45 dm-crypt: Performance Regression 2.6.37 -> 2.6.38-rc8 Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe
2011-03-08 17:35 ` Milan Broz [this message]
2011-03-08 19:23 ` [dm-crypt] " Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe
2011-03-08 20:07 ` Milan Broz
2011-03-08 20:17 ` Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe
2011-03-10 16:57 ` Andi Kleen
2011-03-10 17:54 ` Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe
2011-03-11 1:18 ` Andi Kleen
2011-03-11 18:03 ` Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe
2011-03-11 18:29 ` Milan Broz
2011-03-11 18:36 ` Andi Kleen
2011-03-12 1:05 ` Herbert Xu
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=4D7668C5.5050100@redhat.com \
--to=mbroz@redhat.com \
--cc=Mario.Holbe@TU-Ilmenau.DE \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dm-crypt@saout.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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