xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch] xfs: properly account for reclaimed inodes

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [patch] xfs: properly account for reclaimed inodes
From: "Hans-Peter Jansen" <hpj@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 11:26:46 +0200
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, stable@xxxxxxxxxx, John Hawley <warthog9@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20101004102213.GJ2618@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20101001074354.GF2618@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20101004071904.GH4681@dastard> <20101004102213.GJ2618@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: KMail/1.9.10
On Monday 04 October 2010, 12:22:13 Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 06:19:04PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 12:17:23PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 09:43 +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > When marking an inode reclaimable, a per-AG counter is increased,
> > > > the inode is tagged reclaimable in its per-AG tree, and, when this
> > > > is the first reclaimable inode in the AG, the AG entry in the
> > > > per-mount tree is also tagged.
> > > >
> > > > When an inode is finally reclaimed, however, it is only deleted
> > > > from the per-AG tree.  Neither the counter is decreased, nor is the
> > > > parent tree's AG entry untagged properly.
> > > >
> > > > Since the tags in the per-mount tree are not cleared, the inode
> > > > shrinker iterates over all AGs that have had reclaimable inodes at
> > > > one point in time.
> > > >
> > > > The counters on the other hand signal an increasing amount of slab
> > > > objects to reclaim.  Since "70e60ce xfs: convert inode shrinker to
> > > > per-filesystem context" this is not a real issue anymore because
> > > > the shrinker bails out after one iteration.
> > > >
> > > > But the problem was observable on a machine running v2.6.34, where
> > > > the reclaimable work increased and each process going into direct
> > > > reclaim eventually got stuck on the xfs inode shrinking path,
> > > > trying to scan several million objects.
> > > >
> > > > Fix this by properly unwinding the reclaimable-state tracking of an
> > > > inode when it is reclaimed.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > Yes, this looks right to me.  The state was correctly
> > > adjusted in xfs_iget_cache_hit() when a RECLAIMABLE
> > > inode is found in the cache, but it was not done when
> > > reclaim completes.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > Alex, can you push this to Linus ASAP? This needs to go back to
> > stable kernels as well..
>
> Here is my suggestion of a backport to .34.  Dave, Alex, do you
> approve?
>
>       Hannes
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c
> index 6845db9..3314f2a 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c
> @@ -499,6 +499,7 @@ xfs_ireclaim(
>       write_lock(&pag->pag_ici_lock);
>       if (!radix_tree_delete(&pag->pag_ici_root, agino))
>               ASSERT(0);
> +     pag->pag_ici_reclaimable--;
>       write_unlock(&pag->pag_ici_lock);
>       xfs_perag_put(pag);
>
>

Ping?

Masters of xfs, please raise your voices!

Pete

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