On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 04:01:49PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 09:32:13PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 09:11:01PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 04:38:12PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >> > > It would be better to write zeros to it, so we aren't measuring the
> > >> > > cost of the unwritten->written conversion.
> > >> >
> > >> > At the risk of beating a dead horse, how hard would it be to defer
> > >> > this part until writeback?
> > >>
> > >> Part of the work has to be done at write time because we need to
> > >> update allocation statistics (i.e., so that we don't have ENOSPC
> > >> problems). The unwritten->written conversion does happen at writeback
> > >> (as does the actual block allocation if we are doing delayed
> > >> allocation).
> > >>
> > >> The point is that if the goal is to measure page fault scalability, we
> > >> shouldn't have this other stuff happening as the same time as the page
> > >> fault workload.
> > >
> > > Sure, but the real problem is not the block mapping or allocation
> > > path - even if the test is changed to take that out of the picture,
> > > we still have timestamp updates being done on every single page
> > > fault. ext4, XFS and btrfs all do transactional timestamp updates
> > > and have nanosecond granularity, so every page fault is resulting in
> > > a transaction to update the timestamp of the file being modified.
> > I have (unmergeable) patches to fix this:
> > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/92476
> The big problem with this approach is that not doing the
> timestamp update on page faults is going to break the inode change
> version counting because for ext4, btrfs and XFS it takes a
> transaction to bump that counter. NFS needs to know the moment a
> file is changed in memory, not when it is written to disk.
I don't think the in-memory updates of the data and the version have to
be completely atomic, if that's what you mean.
> Also, NFS
> requires the change to the counter to be persistent over server
> failures, so it needs to be changed as part of a transaction....
I'm not sure those two updates have to be a single atomic transaction on
(Though the reboot cases are more complicated, I may not have thought it
(By the way, I wonder what happens if we reuse a change attribute value
after a crash? There's probably a (hard to hit) bug there.)
> IOWs, fixing the "filesystems need a transaction on each page_mkwrite
> call" problem isn't as simple as changing how timestamps are
> Dave Chinner
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/