[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 44/49] xfs: Reduce allocations during CIL insertion

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 44/49] xfs: Reduce allocations during CIL insertion
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:31:40 -0500
Cc: "Michael L. Semon" <mlsemon35@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130730003000.GI13468@dastard>
References: <1374215120-7271-45-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <51EEF26F.5040001@xxxxxxx> <51EEF949.9020104@xxxxxxxxx> <51EFD68A.40400@xxxxxxx> <51F2E011.5020904@xxxxxxxxx> <51F2E4DD.4020301@xxxxxxx> <20130727015822.GV13468@dastard> <51F41250.9010703@xxxxxxx> <20130728011255.GY13468@dastard> <51F678F4.2020003@xxxxxxx> <20130730003000.GI13468@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120122 Thunderbird/9.0
On 07/29/13 19:30, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 09:15:16AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
On 07/27/13 20:12, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 01:32:48PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
On 07/26/13 20:58, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 04:06:37PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:

I can reproduce a problem in patch 44 too. It takes my copy test 20
minutes to deplete the log space with patch 44, Same test with patch
43 has been running a day and a half. I do not think that patch 44
is 100 times faster than patch 43 but I will let patch 43 spin all
weekend on a couple machines to verify that patch 43 does not hang.

Details, please. What's your "copy test"?
Micheal found the problem using a simple copy, so I am using copy-like test.

BTW, the long term run of the copy.pl from bug 922 with patch 43 results:
  tail            0x601000055d7
  grant/reserve   0x60100abb200
  ctx t_unit_res  0x834

My log math may be off, tail/reserve diff is 1024, but the CTX holds
more than that (2100 bytes).

Looking at patch 44, it is the first time we use the calculation for
the number of bytes in patch 43. So I am looking at where the new
calculation in iop_size differs from the previous len calculation in
xlog_cil_prepare_log_vecs(). So far, I am that inode entry is 140
bytes larger with the new calculation (former len 164 vrs new nbytes
304 type 123b - non-crc filesystem).

Which size calculation is wrong? t~he one used to size the buffer
being allocated - which is intentionally oversized for the inode
forks - or the actual size formatted into the buffer, which was

I mean, 164 bytes is an inode core (96 bytes) plus a inode log
format structure. The increase of 140 bytes indicates that we are
logging roughly the entire 256 byte inode - i.e. both forks.

But are you looking at the size returned by iop_size or iop_format?
iop_size will be new, iop_format is unchanged by this patchset.
indeed, what iop_format returns as vectors is *unchanged* by this
patchset, so I think that you are chasing down the wrong path here.

164 is the variable len. It is the sum of the xfs_log_iovec.i_len after

304 is the result of the iop_size(). starting in patch 44 that is used
insteead of len. When we go do the format, we only use 164.

It is the XFS_DINODE_FMT_EXTENTS inode type that generates the extra
140 bytes in xfs_inode_item_size().

In patch 43, use nbytes instead of len like is done in patch 44 and it
hangs at the same time and manner than patch 44.

I will see if I can substitute the nbytes for len (without
triggering the ptr being exceeded assert) to see that will cause the

I know what the problem is will be, and that won't fix it. Hint: the
buffer is over sized.




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