xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: don't trigger fsync log force based on inode pin count

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: don't trigger fsync log force based on inode pin count
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:02:44 -0400
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150422211845.GP21261@dastard>
References: <1429713466-22137-1-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> <20150422161509.GA27237@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150422171322.GB6688@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150422211845.GP21261@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 07:18:45AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 01:13:23PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 09:15:09AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:37:46AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > There are probably a couple different ways to handle this. We could log
> > > > the inode in the bmap cases in order to preserve the pincount check.
> > > 
> > > I'd favor that.  For one performance should be better, second we really
> > > need to dirty the inode anyway for v5 file systems as that's the
> > > mechanism used to increment di_changecount.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yeah, that's a good point. I noticed that in xfs_trans_log_inode() when
> > debugging but didn't think much about it since I reproduced on v4. I can
> > get performance back with the aforementioned cil push fix, but if the
> > path forward is behavior where the inode is going to be logged anyways,
> > that is decent reason to emulate such behavior in the pre-v5 case.
> > 
> > Note that we have the following in xfs_bmapi_write():
> > 
> >         if (bma.logflags)
> >                 xfs_trans_log_inode(tp, ip, bma.logflags);
> 
> Which, essentially, only contains flags when we do a extent-to-btree
> conversion or vice versa, so we effectively never log the inode on
> unwritten extent conversions unless the size changes.
> 
> I agree with Christoph - we should just unconditionally log the
> inode in xfs_bmap_add_extent_unwritten_real() as it's a user visible
> data change we need to bump di_changecount for. i.e. NFS client can
> see the unwritten data after a data write has started and changed the
> timestamps/write count, but then the IO completion makes the data
> visible and hence the change count needs to be bumped again...
> 

Ok, that works for me. I'll give it a shot.

> > ... and some other places. I don't reproduce this particular problem on
> > v5, so something else might be logging the inode here. That strikes me
> > as not what we want with regard to the change count, however..
> 
> Larger inode size with v5, so it's entirely possible that v5 is not
> triggering the problemon this test because the extent list is
> remaining in local format and so any updates are logging the inode
> directly....
> 

That was what I thought at first but I bumped the extent count a couple
times and still couldn't reproduce. I was curious enough to track it
down and it is actually the time update again. For whatever reason, I
think the crc mechanism is throwing the timing off and just hiding the
problem again. E.g., no-op xfs_vn_time_update() and the problem
reproduces on v5 as well.

Brian

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

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