[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [dm-devel] dm-crypt barrier support is effective (was: Re: DM-CRYPT: Scale to multiple CPUs v3 on 2.6.37-rc* ?)
- From: Matt <jackdachef gmail com>
- To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer redhat com>
- Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel vger kernel org>, dm-devel <dm-devel redhat com>, Andi Kleen <andi firstfloor org>, Chris Mason <chris mason oracle com>, linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs vger kernel org>, htd <htd fancy-poultry org>, Milan Broz <mbroz redhat com>
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] dm-crypt barrier support is effective (was: Re: DM-CRYPT: Scale to multiple CPUs v3 on 2.6.37-rc* ?)
- Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:49:12 +0100
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Mike Snitzer <snitzer redhat com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08 2010 at 12:59pm -0500,
> Chris Mason <chris mason oracle com> wrote:
>> Excerpts from Mike Snitzer's message of 2010-11-08 09:58:09 -0500:
>> > On Sun, Nov 07 2010 at 6:05pm -0500,
>> > Andi Kleen <andi firstfloor org> wrote:
>> > > On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 10:39:23PM +0100, Milan Broz wrote:
>> > > > On 11/07/2010 08:45 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> > > > >> I read about barrier-problems and data getting to the partition when
>> > > > >> using dm-crypt and several layers so I don't know if that could be
>> > > > >> related
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Barriers seem to be totally broken on dm-crypt currently.
>> > > >
>> > > > Can you explain it?
>> > >
>> > > e.g. the btrfs mailing list is full of corruption reports
>> > > on dm-crypt and most of the symptoms point to broken barriers.
>> > [cc'ing linux-btrfs, hopefully in the future dm-devel will get cc'd when
>> > concerns about DM come up on linux-btrfs (or other lists)]
>> > I spoke with Josef Bacik and these corruption reports are apparently
>> > against older kernels (e.g. <= 2.6.33). I say <= 2.6.33 because:
>> We've consistently seen reports about corruptions on power hits with
>> dm-crypt. The logs didn't have any messages about barriers failing, but
>> the corruptions were still there. The most likely cause is that
>> barriers just aren't getting through somehow.
> Can't blame anyone for assuming as much (although it does create FUD)
> but in practice (testing dm-crypt with ext4 using your barrier-test
> script) I have not been able to see any evidence that dm-crypt's barrier
> support is ineffective.
> Could be that the barrier-test script isn't able to reproduce the unique
> failure case that btrfs does (on power failure)?
>> > > > Barriers/flush change should work, if it is broken, it is not only dm-crypt.
>> > > > (dm-crypt simply relies on dm-core implementation, when barrier/flush
>> > > > request come to dmcrypt, all previous IO must be already finished).
>> > >
>> > > Possibly, at least it doesn't seem to work.
>> > Can you please be more specific? What test(s)? What kernel(s)?
>> > Any pointers to previous (and preferably: recent) reports would be
>> > appreciated.
> I still think we need specific bug reports that detail workloads and if
> possible reproducers.
>> > The DM barrier code has seen considerable change recently (via flush+fua
>> > changes in 2.6.37). Those changes have been tested quite a bit
>> > (including ext4 consistency after a crash).
>> > But even prior to those flush+fua changes DM's support for barriers
>> > (Linux >= 2.6.31) was held to be robust. No known (at least no
>> > reported) issues with DM's barrier support.
>> I think it would be best to move forward with just hammering on the
>> dm-crypt barriers:
>> This script is the best I've found so far to reliably trigger
>> corruptions with barriers off. I'd start with ext3 + barriers off just
>> to prove it corrupts things, then move to ext3 + barriers on.
> I started with ext4 + barrier=0,journal_async_commit and could reliably
> cause directory corruption (~75% of the time). I then switched to
> barrier=1 and could not cause corruption.
> I then added dm-crypt and got the same results: with barrier=1 I could
> not cause directory corruption. barrier=0 resulted in directory
> corruption (again ~75% of the time), no corruption occurred with
> Both 2.6.36 (original barrier code) and latest 2.6.37-rc1+ (new
> flush+fua code) were tested. 6 iterations of barrier=0 and 10
> iterations of barrier=1.
> So my hope is we can now put this general dm-crypt barrier doubt to one
> side and work together on identifying the cause of corruption when
> dm-crypt is paired with btrfs.
I'm pretty sure that dm-crypt is rockstable :)
My report wasn't meant to be / cause FUD sorry if it got picked up that way:
with the vanilla dm-crypt implementation I saw *NO* corruption at all
in the small testing amount of time I ran it
however as soon as I applied the
[dm-devel] [PATCH] DM-CRYPT: Scale to multiple CPUs v3
[PATCH] Fix double free and use generic private pointer in per-cpu
patches, recompiled the kernel and rebooted into that new environment
it seemingly caused corruptions right from the start (the mentioned
corruption /etc/env.d/02opengl to be the most obvious candidate and
probably even more)
with those corruptions being anticipated over longer uptime and heavy
use-patterns (such as re-compiling the whole system).
I don't know if the new multi-cpu scaling patch for dm-crypt makes a
change (since I can't test it right now due to a busy schedule)
[PATCH v5] dm crypt: scale to multiple CPUs
I however have a request:
could you guys please take this patch through a "battery of heavy
tests" until it's included in mainline ?
so that you can spot any issues (races, BUGs, etc.) which might be
inherent/triggered in current dm-crypt so that my reported corruptions
might be prevented in the future ?
the vanilla kernel and dm-crypt are perfectly stable !
only with the dm-crypt scaling patch I could observe the data-corruption
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]