Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH] dm-verity: Remove WQ_UNBOUND.

From: Nathan Huckleberry
Date: Tue Feb 07 2023 - 17:54:39 EST


On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 12:16 AM Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023, Nathan Huckleberry wrote:
>
> > Setting WQ_UNBOUND increases scheduler latency on ARM64. This is likely
> > due to the asymmetric architecture of ARM64 processors.
> >
> > I've been unable to reproduce the results that claim WQ_UNBOUND gives a
> > performance boost on x86-64.
> >
> > This flag is causing performance issues for multiple subsystems within
> > Android. Notably, the same slowdown exists for decompression with
> > EROFS.
> >
> > | open-prebuilt-camera | WQ_UNBOUND | ~WQ_UNBOUND |
> > |-----------------------|------------|---------------|
> > | verity wait time (us) | 11746 | 119 (-98%) |
> > | erofs wait time (us) | 357805 | 174205 (-51%) |
> >
> > | sha256 ramdisk random read | WQ_UNBOUND | ~WQ_UNBOUND |
> > |----------------------------|-----------=---|-------------|
> > | arm64 (accelerated) | bw=42.4MiB/s | bw=212MiB/s |
> > | arm64 (generic) | bw=16.5MiB/s | bw=48MiB/s |
> > | x86_64 (generic) | bw=233MiB/s | bw=230MiB/s |
> >
> > Cc: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Nathan Huckleberry <nhuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/md/dm-verity-target.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-verity-target.c b/drivers/md/dm-verity-target.c
> > index ccf5b852fbf7..020fd2341025 100644
> > --- a/drivers/md/dm-verity-target.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/dm-verity-target.c
> > @@ -1399,8 +1399,8 @@ static int verity_ctr(struct dm_target *ti, unsigned argc, char **argv)
> > goto bad;
> > }
> >
> > - /* WQ_UNBOUND greatly improves performance when running on ramdisk */
> > - wq_flags = WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_UNBOUND;
> > + wq_flags = WQ_MEM_RECLAIM;
> > +
> > /*
> > * Using WQ_HIGHPRI improves throughput and completion latency by
> > * reducing wait times when reading from a dm-verity device.
>
> Hi
>
> If you remove WQ_UNBOUND, you should also change the last argument of
> alloc_workqueue from num_online_cpus() to either 0 or 1. Try both 0 and 1
> and tell us which performs better.

They look roughly the same on ARM64. There's a slight advantage for
using 1, but they're too close to conclusively say one is better.

Thanks,
Huck

>
> Mikulas
>