[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 05/18] xfs: convert inode cache lookups to use RCU locking

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/18] xfs: convert inode cache lookups to use RCU locking
From: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:23:41 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1284461777-1496-6-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1284461777-1496-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1284461777-1496-6-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: aelder@xxxxxxx
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 20:56 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> With delayed logging greatly increasing the sustained parallelism of inode
> operations, the inode cache locking is showing significant read vs write
> contention when inode reclaim runs at the same time as lookups. There is
> also a lot more write lock acquistions than there are read locks (4:1 ratio)
> so the read locking is not really buying us much in the way of parallelism.
> To avoid the read vs write contention, change the cache to use RCU locking on
> the read side. To avoid needing to RCU free every single inode, use the built
> in slab RCU freeing mechanism. This requires us to be able to detect lookups 
> of
> freed inodes, so enѕure that ever freed inode has an inode number of zero and
> the XFS_IRECLAIM flag set. We already check the XFS_IRECLAIM flag in cache hit
> lookup path, but also add a check for a zero inode number as well.
> We canthen convert all the read locking lockups to use RCU read side locking
> and hence remove all read side locking.
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>

I confess that I'm a little less than solid on this, but
that's a comment on me, not your code.  (After writing
all this I feel a bit better.)

I'll try to describe my understanding and you can reassure
me all is well...  It's quite a lot, but I'll call attention
to two things to look for:  a question about something in
xfs_reclaim_inode(); and a comment related to

First, you are replacing the use of a single rwlock for
protecting access to the per-AG in-core inode radix tree
with RCU for readers and a spinlock for writers.

This initially seemed strange to me, and unsafe, but I
now think it's OK because:
- the spinlock protects against concurrent writers
  interfering with each other
- the rcu_read_lock() is sufficient for ensuring readers
  have valid pointers, because the underlying structure
  is a radix tree, which uses rcu_update_pointer() in
  order to change anything in the tree.
I'm still unsettled about the protection readers have
against a concurrent writer, but it's probably just
because this particular usage is new to me.

Second, you are exploiting the SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU
feature in order to avoid having to have each inode
wait an RCU grace period when it's freed.  To use
that we need to check for and recognize a freed
inode after looking it up, since we have no guarantee
it's updated in the radix tree after it's freed until
after an RCU grace period has passed.  So zeroing the
i_ino field and setting XFS_RECLAIM handles that.

So I see these lookups:
- Two gang lookups in xfs_inode_ag_lookup(), which
  is called only by xfs_inode_ag_walk(), in turn
  called only by xfs_inode_ag_iterator().  The
  check in this case has to happen in the "execute"
  function passed in to xfs_inode_ag_walk() via
  xfs_inode_ag_iterator().  The affected functions
    - xfs_sync_inode_data().  This one calls
      xfs_sync_inode_valid() right away, which in
      your change now checks for a zero i_ino.
    - xfs_sync_inode_attr().  Same as above,
      handled by xfs_sync_inode_valid().
    - xfs_reclaim_inode().  This one should
      be fine, because it already has a test
      for the XFS_IRECLAIM flag being set, and
      ignores the inode if it is.  However, it
      has this line also:
        ASSERT_ALWAYS(__xfs_iflags_test(ip, XFS_IRECLAIMABLE));
      Your change doesn't set XFS_IRECLAIMABLE, so
*     I imagine if we get here inside that RCU window
*     we'd have a problem.  Am I wrong about this?
    - xfs_dqrele_inode().  This one again calls
      xfs_sync_inode_valid(), so should be covered.
- A lookup in xfs_iget().  This is handled by
  your change, by looking for a zero i_ino in
* xfs_iget_cache_hit().  (Please see the comment
  on this function in-line, below.)
- A lookup in xfs_ifree_cluster().  Handled by
  your change (now checks for zero i_ino).
- And a gang lookup in xfs_iflush_cluster().  This
  one is handled by your change (now checks each
  inode for a zero i_ino field).

OK, so I think that covers everything, but I have
that one question about xfs_reclaim_inode(), and
then I have one more comment below.

Despite all my commentary above...  The patch looks
good (consistent) to me.  I'm interested to hear
your feedback though.  And unless there is something
major changed, or I'm fundamentally misguided about
this stuff, you can consider it:

Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>

> ---
>  fs/xfs/linux-2.6/kmem.h        |    1 +
>  fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c   |    3 ++-
>  fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.c    |   12 ++++++------
>  fs/xfs/quota/xfs_qm_syscalls.c |    4 ++--

. . .

> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c
> index b1ecc6f..f3a46b6 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c

. . .

> @@ -145,12 +153,26 @@ xfs_iget_cache_hit(
>       struct xfs_perag        *pag,
>       struct xfs_inode        *ip,
>       int                     flags,
> -     int                     lock_flags) __releases(pag->pag_ici_lock)
> +     int                     lock_flags) __releases(RCU)
>  {
>       struct inode            *inode = VFS_I(ip);
>       struct xfs_mount        *mp = ip->i_mount;
>       int                     error;
> +     /*
> +      * check for re-use of an inode within an RCU grace period due to the
> +      * radix tree nodes not being updated yet. We monitor for this by
> +      * setting the inode number to zero before freeing the inode structure.
> +      */
> +     if (ip->i_ino == 0) {
> +             trace_xfs_iget_skip(ip);
> +             XFS_STATS_INC(xs_ig_frecycle);
> +             rcu_read_unlock();
> +             /* Expire the grace period so we don't trip over it again. */
> +             synchronize_rcu();

Since you're waiting for the end of the grace period here,
it seems a shame that the caller (xfs_iget()) will still
end up calling delay(1) before trying again.  It would
be nice if the delay could be avoided in that case.

> +             return EAGAIN;
> +     }
> +
>       spin_lock(&ip->i_flags_lock);
>       /*

. . .

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>