On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 07:01:36PM +0200, Enric Balletbo Serra wrote:
> Hi Vito,
>
> cc: dm-devel, Alasdair and Mike Snitzer
>
> 2018-05-28 5:32 GMT+02:00 Vito Caputo <vcap...@pengaru.com>:
> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 12:33:21AM -0800, vcap...@pengaru.com wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:57:32AM +0100, Enric Balletbo Serra wrote:
> >> > Hi Vito,
> >> >
> >> > 2018-01-17 23:48 GMT+01:00 <vcap...@pengaru.com>:
> >> > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:25:33AM +0100, Enric Balletbo Serra wrote:
> >> > >> Hi Vito,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 2017-12-01 22:33 GMT+01:00 <vcap...@pengaru.com>:
> >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:39:19AM -0800, vcap...@pengaru.com wrote:
> >> > >> >> Hello,
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Recently I noticed substantial audio dropouts when listening to
> >> > >> >> MP3s in
> >> > >> >> `cmus` while doing big and churny `git checkout` commands in my
> >> > >> >> linux git
> >> > >> >> tree.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> It's not something I've done much of over the last couple months
> >> > >> >> so I
> >> > >> >> hadn't noticed until yesterday, but didn't remember this being a
> >> > >> >> problem in
> >> > >> >> recent history.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> As there's quite an accumulation of similarly configured and built
> >> > >> >> kernels
> >> > >> >> in my grub menu, it was trivial to determine approximately when
> >> > >> >> this began:
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> 4.11.0: no dropouts
> >> > >> >> 4.12.0-rc7: dropouts
> >> > >> >> 4.14.0-rc6: dropouts (seem more substantial as well, didn't
> >> > >> >> investigate)
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Watching top while this is going on in the various kernel
> >> > >> >> versions, it's
> >> > >> >> apparent that the kworker behavior changed. Both the priority and
> >> > >> >> quantity
> >> > >> >> of running kworker threads is elevated in kernels experiencing
> >> > >> >> dropouts.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Searching through the commit history for v4.11..v4.12 uncovered:
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> commit a1b89132dc4f61071bdeaab92ea958e0953380a1
> >> > >> >> Author: Tim Murray <timmur...@google.com>
> >> > >> >> Date: Fri Apr 21 11:11:36 2017 +0200
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> dm crypt: use WQ_HIGHPRI for the IO and crypt workqueues
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Running dm-crypt with workqueues at the standard priority
> >> > >> >> results in IO
> >> > >> >> competing for CPU time with standard user apps, which can lead
> >> > >> >> to
> >> > >> >> pipeline bubbles and seriously degraded performance. Move to
> >> > >> >> using
> >> > >> >> WQ_HIGHPRI workqueues to protect against that.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Tim Murray <timmur...@google.com>
> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra
> >> > >> >> <enric.balle...@collabora.com>
> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snit...@redhat.com>
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> ---
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Reverting a1b8913 from 4.14.0-rc6, my current kernel, eliminates
> >> > >> >> the
> >> > >> >> problem completely.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Looking at the diff in that commit, it looks like the commit
> >> > >> >> message isn't
> >> > >> >> even accurate; not only is the priority of the dmcrypt workqueues
> >> > >> >> being
> >> > >> >> changed - they're also being made "CPU intensive" workqueues as
> >> > >> >> well.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> This combination appears to result in both elevated scheduling
> >> > >> >> priority and
> >> > >> >> greater quantity of participant worker threads effectively
> >> > >> >> starving any
> >> > >> >> normal priority user task under periods of heavy IO on dmcrypt
> >> > >> >> volumes.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> I don't know what the right solution is here. It seems to me
> >> > >> >> we're lacking
> >> > >> >> the appropriate mechanism for charging CPU resources consumed on
> >> > >> >> behalf of
> >> > >> >> user processes in kworker threads to the work-causing process.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> What effectively happens is my normal `git` user process is able to
> >> > >> >> greatly amplify what share of CPU it takes from the system by
> >> > >> >> generating IO
> >> > >> >> on what happens to be a high-priority CPU-intensive storage volume.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> It looks potentially complicated to fix properly, but I suspect at
> >> > >> >> its core
> >> > >> >> this may be a fairly longstanding shortcoming of the page cache
> >> > >> >> and its
> >> > >> >> asynchronous design. Something that has been exacerbated
> >> > >> >> substantially by
> >> > >> >> the introduction of CPU-intensive storage subsystems like dmcrypt.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> If we imagine the whole stack simplified, where all the IO was
> >> > >> >> being done
> >> > >> >> synchronously in-band, and the dmcrypt kernel code simply ran in
> >> > >> >> the
> >> > >> >> IO-causing process context, it would be getting charged to the
> >> > >> >> calling
> >> > >> >> process and scheduled accordingly. The resource accounting and
> >> > >> >> scheduling
> >> > >> >> problems all emerge with the page cache, buffered IO, and async
> >> > >> >> background
> >> > >> >> writeback in a pool of unrelated worker threads, etc. That's how
> >> > >> >> it
> >> > >> >> appears to me anyways...
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> The system used is a X61s Thinkpad 1.8Ghz with 840 EVO SSD, lvm on
> >> > >> >> dmcrypt.
> >> > >> >> The kernel .config is attached in case it's of interest.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Thanks,
> >> > >> >> Vito Caputo
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Ping...
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Could somebody please at least ACK receiving this so I'm not left
> >> > >> > wondering
> >> > >> > if my mails to lkml are somehow winding up flagged as spam, thanks!
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Sorry I did not notice your email before you ping me directly. It's
> >> > >> interesting that issue, though we didn't notice this problem. It's a
> >> > >> bit far since I tested this patch but I'll setup the environment again
> >> > >> and do more tests to understand better what is happening.
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > > Any update on this?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I did not reproduce the issue for now. Can you try what happens if you
> >> > remove the WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE in the kcryptd_io workqueue?
> >> >
> >> > - cc->io_queue = alloc_workqueue("kcryptd_io", WQ_HIGHPRI |
> >> > WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 1);
> >> > cc->io_queue = alloc_workqueue("kcryptd_io", WQ_HIGHPRI |
> >> > WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 1);
> >> >
> >>
> >> FWIW if I change both "kcryptd" and "kcryptd_io" workqueues to just
> >> WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE, removing WQ_HIGHPRIO, the problem goes away.
> >>
> >> Doing this to "kcryptd_io" alone, as mentioned in my previous email, was
> >> ineffective.
> >>
> >> Perhaps revert just the WQ_HIGHPRIO bit from the dmcrypt workqueues?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Guys... this is still a problem in 4.17-rc6.
> >
> > I don't understand why this is being ignored. It's pathetic, my laptop
> > can't even do a git checkout of the linux tree while playing mp3s
> > without the music skipping.
> >
>
> Sorry, but it's easy to lost something on lkml, so adding the dm-devel
> ML and the maintainers.
>
> > Reverting a1b8913 completely eliminates the problem. What gives?
> >
>
> IIRC the patch is there since 4.12 and I tried to reproduce the issue
> on at least two devices, my laptop and a Chromebook Pixel 2 without
> luck. Also, I am a bit surprised that nobody else has complained,
> maybe I missed it, and *of course*, this doesn't mean the issue is not
> there.
>
> So, did anyone experience the same issue?
>
FYI I've created https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=199857 to
track this issue more formally.
Thanks,
Vito Caputo
