[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 44/49] xfs: Reduce allocations during CIL insertion
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:19:38 +1000
Cc: "Michael L. Semon" <mlsemon35@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51F7C03C.8000704@xxxxxxx>
References: <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> <51F7C03C.8000704@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:31:40AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> 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
> >unchanged?
> >
> >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
> format.


> 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().

Sure, the changes to iop_size() can return the full size of the
inode if the inode forks are in the correct format as it is returns
the worst case possible for the given format.

> 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.

nbytes is the size is by iop_size(), and is 304. But there is no
"len" parameter in patch 44, so I've got no idea what you are
talking about. Can you please use code snippets to show exectly what
you are talking about?

I need to know if you worked around the problem I think you have,
and the only way I can tell that is if you post the patch that you
tested that fixed the problem you were seeing. Posting code that
fixes the problem is often the simplest and easiest way to describe
the problem being solved....


Dave Chinner

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