xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 6/7] libxfs: keep unflushable buffers off the cache MRUs

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] libxfs: keep unflushable buffers off the cache MRUs
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 09:22:20 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1454627108-19036-7-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1454627108-19036-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1454627108-19036-7-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 10:05:07AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> There's no point trying to free buffers that are dirty and return
> errors on flush as we have to keep them around until the corruption
> is fixed. Hence if we fail to flush an inode during a cache shake,
> move the buffer to a special dirty MRU list that the cache does not
> shake. This prevents memory pressure from seeing these buffers, but
> allows subsequent cache lookups to still find them through the hash.
> This ensures we don't waste huge amounts of CPU trying to flush and
> reclaim buffers that canot be flushed or reclaimed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  include/cache.h |  3 ++-
>  libxfs/cache.c  | 78 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
...
> diff --git a/libxfs/cache.c b/libxfs/cache.c
> index a48ebd9..d4b4a4e 100644
> --- a/libxfs/cache.c
> +++ b/libxfs/cache.c
...
> @@ -183,15 +183,45 @@ cache_generic_bulkrelse(
>  }
>  
...
> +/*
> + * We've hit the limit on cache size, so we need to start reclaiming nodes 
> we've
> + * used. The MRU specified by the priority is shaken.  Returns new priority 
> at
> + * end of the call (in case we call again). We are not allowed to reclaim 
> dirty
> + * objects, so we have to flush them first. If flushing fails, we move them 
> to
> + * the "dirty, unreclaimable" list.
> + *
> + * Hence we skip priorities > CACHE_MAX_PRIORITY unless "purge" is set as we
> + * park unflushable (and hence unreclaimable) buffers at these priorities.
> + * Trying to shake unreclaimable buffer lists whent here is memory pressure 
> is a

                                                typo ^

> + * waste of time and CPU and greatly slows down cache node recycling 
> operations.
> + * Hence we only try to free them if we are being asked to purge the cache of
> + * all entries.
>   */
>  static unsigned int
>  cache_shake(
>       struct cache *          cache,
>       unsigned int            priority,
> -     int                     all)
> +     bool                    purge)
>  {
>       struct cache_mru        *mru;
>       struct cache_hash *     hash;
> @@ -202,10 +232,11 @@ cache_shake(
>       struct cache_node *     node;
>       unsigned int            count;
>  
> -     ASSERT(priority <= CACHE_MAX_PRIORITY);
> -     if (priority > CACHE_MAX_PRIORITY)
> +     ASSERT(priority <= CACHE_DIRTY_PRIORITY);
> +     if (priority > CACHE_MAX_PRIORITY && !purge)
>               priority = 0;
>  
> +

... and still an extra newline here. Otherwise looks good:

Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>

>       mru = &cache->c_mrus[priority];
>       count = 0;
>       list_head_init(&temp);
> @@ -219,8 +250,10 @@ cache_shake(
>               if (pthread_mutex_trylock(&node->cn_mutex) != 0)
>                       continue;
>  
> -             /* can't release dirty objects */
> -             if (cache->flush(node)) {
> +             /* memory pressure is not allowed to release dirty objects */
> +             if (cache->flush(node) && !purge) {
> +                     cache_move_to_dirty_mru(cache, node);
> +                     mru->cm_count--;
>                       pthread_mutex_unlock(&node->cn_mutex);
>                       continue;
>               }
> @@ -242,7 +275,7 @@ cache_shake(
>               pthread_mutex_unlock(&node->cn_mutex);
>  
>               count++;
> -             if (!all && count == CACHE_SHAKE_COUNT)
> +             if (!purge && count == CACHE_SHAKE_COUNT)
>                       break;
>       }
>       pthread_mutex_unlock(&mru->cm_mutex);
> @@ -423,7 +456,7 @@ next_object:
>               node = cache_node_allocate(cache, key);
>               if (node)
>                       break;
> -             priority = cache_shake(cache, priority, 0);
> +             priority = cache_shake(cache, priority, false);
>               /*
>                * We start at 0; if we free CACHE_SHAKE_COUNT we get
>                * back the same priority, if not we get back priority+1.
> @@ -578,8 +611,8 @@ cache_purge(
>  {
>       int                     i;
>  
> -     for (i = 0; i <= CACHE_MAX_PRIORITY; i++)
> -             cache_shake(cache, i, 1);
> +     for (i = 0; i <= CACHE_DIRTY_PRIORITY; i++)
> +             cache_shake(cache, i, true);
>  
>  #ifdef CACHE_DEBUG
>       if (cache->c_count != 0) {
> @@ -626,13 +659,13 @@ cache_flush(
>  #define      HASH_REPORT     (3 * HASH_CACHE_RATIO)
>  void
>  cache_report(
> -     FILE                    *fp,
> -     const char              *name,
> -     struct cache            *cache)
> +     FILE            *fp,
> +     const char      *name,
> +     struct cache    *cache)
>  {
> -     int                     i;
> -     unsigned long           count, index, total;
> -     unsigned long           hash_bucket_lengths[HASH_REPORT + 2];
> +     int             i;
> +     unsigned long   count, index, total;
> +     unsigned long   hash_bucket_lengths[HASH_REPORT + 2];
>  
>       if ((cache->c_hits + cache->c_misses) == 0)
>               return;
> @@ -662,6 +695,11 @@ cache_report(
>                       i, cache->c_mrus[i].cm_count,
>                       cache->c_mrus[i].cm_count * 100 / cache->c_count);
>  
> +     i = CACHE_DIRTY_PRIORITY;
> +     fprintf(fp, "Dirty MRU %d entries = %6u (%3u%%)\n",
> +             i, cache->c_mrus[i].cm_count,
> +             cache->c_mrus[i].cm_count * 100 / cache->c_count);
> +
>       /* report hash bucket lengths */
>       bzero(hash_bucket_lengths, sizeof(hash_bucket_lengths));
>  
> -- 
> 2.5.0
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

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