Received: by 10.213.65.68 with SMTP id h4csp164622imn; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:09:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuILz3/9OrK3Z9T0bgUkd0Jqo4dQO1SdDTRTkkYXHcN/uCRJJjgLQwJwo5aBTrkgBUqn3m3 X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:5a0b:: with SMTP id q11-v6mr43913432pli.199.1522112940815; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:09:00 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1522112940; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Zv2AAgmz1sDHgIYqSfG4rTLdxdJuLVrahSN4JYMtt8mYQP/Puuhr4ZYXONtj2hVJsW MJLTdxhoFo/fNptJhPG7wduECf6vYJtVsAsPbgBAcX3ekYqYqKIkR9szuBICQFbE3CF+ VI80LYzpOS0GwbZS5iUI5P31NGlSWSIc6bUxHFuLih54uLRnlbuykeFtRKneULw9cUuU N3UbuIuNFCT0oidwWuq3Obout2884u+4m5RvG/kObcm4uRJs0qF2Xk8o/EzOOV3Q433f Uy+lByMPCF9MPjWLS0V4yJRIfW9yqw0MfSpQiZ4ZOVExC78jwOBlyDUuynMlrDe0Ntv8 jLCw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=BaqaHs5debApfuHi3Pewu4YpvVxrjt/YYCGGYZH7L14=; b=J0cdyGVmBb/nicUjD9iTjtFZGQ/76/mprl0453krmKeoOGmzKinR1y5PwtGP3ZiYs2 mJT3VJamOyS2SialCK+64//AB6XfMjwBRZrJr/dPBHbomP5VORBnQatyGWnWETF0O9dE ET73G5rLrlaVEiuEOnbY5vqSdHA4MvORW9+azZYEDYbNLexfY7w/bplnRUNe414aPEga UGptGSh9XQQ9LT4F2cfUPxtDjg50LjNZCf2y3DTQnFDqTRUJh8ue9om5FFtYnD2Epx5o j4ekesJIUeJFpzuRCskm2ZhDcrK+EvdgoWP7WK87yVQFEHXQ+RBQFdtd+AKTlYG+unUk mVHQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j3si41017pgv.342.2018.03.26.18.08.45; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752159AbeC0BGi (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:06:38 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:53072 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751935AbeC0BGh (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:06:37 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B456406804D; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:06:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.18.25.149]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0FE71007274; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:06:33 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:06:33 -0400 From: Mike Snitzer To: Yael Chemla Cc: Alasdair Kergon , dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ofir.drang@gmail.com, Yael Chemla Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] md: dm-verity: allow parallel processing of bio blocks Message-ID: <20180327010633.GB23487@redhat.com> References: <1522003290-27243-1-git-send-email-yael.chemla@foss.arm.com> <1522003290-27243-2-git-send-email-yael.chemla@foss.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1522003290-27243-2-git-send-email-yael.chemla@foss.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.3 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.5]); Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:06:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.5]); Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:06:36 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'10.11.54.3' DOMAIN:'int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com' HELO:'smtp.corp.redhat.com' FROM:'msnitzer@redhat.com' RCPT:'' Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Mar 25 2018 at 2:41pm -0400, Yael Chemla wrote: > Allow parallel processing of bio blocks by moving to async. completion > handling. This allows for better resource utilization of both HW and > software based hash tfm and therefore better performance in many cases, > depending on the specific tfm in use. > > Tested on ARM32 (zynq board) and ARM64 (Juno board). > Time of cat command was measured on a filesystem with various file sizes. > 12% performance improvement when HW based hash was used (ccree driver). > SW based hash showed less than 1% improvement. > CPU utilization when HW based hash was used presented 10% less context > switch, 4% less cycles and 7% less instructions. No difference in > CPU utilization noticed with SW based hash. > > Signed-off-by: Yael Chemla This one had various issues. I've fixed most of what I saw and staged in linux-next (purely for build test coverage purposes). I may drop this patch if others disagree with it (or my sg deallocation in the error path question isn't answered). I've staged the changes here (and in linux-next via 'for-next'): https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/log/?h=dm-4.17 I switched all the new GFP_KERNEL uses to GFP_NOIO. The fact that you're doing allocations at all (per IO) is bad enough. Using GFP_KERNEL is a serious liability (risk of deadlock if dm-verity were to be used for something like.. swap.. weird setup but possible). But the gfp flags aside, the need for additional memory and the expectation of scalable async parallel IO is potentially at odds with changes like this (that I just staged, and had to rebase your 2 patches ontop of): https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/commit/?h=dm-4.17&id=a89f6a2cfec86fba7a115642ff082cb4e9450ea6 So I'm particulalry interested to hear from google folks to understand if they are OK with your proposed verity async crypto API use. Mike