From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] xfs: don't access AGI on unlinked inodes if it can
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 12:32:46 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200709023246.GR2005@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200709005526.GC15249@xiangao.remote.csb>
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 08:55:26AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 09:33:11AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 09:57:41PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > > Currently, we use AGI buffer lock to protect in-memory linked list for
> > > unlinked inodes but since it's not necessary to modify AGI unless the
> > > head of the unlinked list is modified. So let's removing the AGI buffer
> > > modification dependency if possible, including 1) adding another per-AG
> > > dedicated lock to protect the whole list and 2) inserting unlinked
> > > inodes from tail.
> > >
> > > For 2), the tail of bucket 0 is now recorded in perag for xfs_iunlink()
> > > to use. xfs_iunlink_remove() still support old multiple short bucket
> > > lists for recovery code.
> >
> > I would split this into two separate patches. One to move to a perag
> > based locking strategy, another to change from head to tail
> > addition as they are largely independent algorithmic changes.
>
> Yes, that is much better from the perspective of spilting patches and
> I thought that before. It seems that is like 2 steps but the proposed
> target solution is as a whole (in other words, 2 steps are code-related)
> and I'm not sure how large these code is sharable or can be inherited
> but rather than introduce some code in patch 2 and then remove immediately
> and turn into a new code in patch 3). I'm not sure how large logic could
> be sharable between these 2 dependent steps so I didn't do that.
>
> I will spilt patches in the next RFC version to make a try.
Thanks!
[snip]
> > i.e. this:
> >
> > xfs_iunlink()
> > {
> >
> > get locks
> > do list insert
> > drop locks
> > }
> >
> > Is better for understanding, maintenance and future modification
> > than:
> >
> > xfs_iunlink()
> > {
> >
> > get perag
> > lock perag
> > look at tail of list
> > if (empty) {
> > unlock perag
> > read/lock AGI
> > lock perag
> > look at tail of list
> > if (empty)
> > do head insert
> > goto out
> > }
> > do tail insert
> > out:
> > update inode/pag tails
> > unlock
> > drop perag
> > }
> >
> > It's trivial for a reader to understand what the first version of
> > xfs_iunlink() is going to do without needing to understand the
> > intraccies of the locking strategies. However, it takes time and
> > effort to undestand exactly waht the second one is doing because
> > it's not clear where lock ends and list modifications start, nor
> > what the locking rules are for the different modifications that are
> > being made. Essentially, it goes back to the complex
> > locking-intertwined-with-modification-algorithm problem the current
> > TOT code has.
> >
> > I'd much prefer to see something like this:
> >
> > /*
> > * Inode allocation in the O_TMPFILE path defines the AGI/unlinked
> > * list lock order as being AGI->perag unlinked list lock. We are
> > * inverting it here as the fast path tail addition does not need to
> > * modify the AGI at all. Hence we only need the AGI lock if the
> > * tail is empty, but if we fail to get it without blocking then we
> > * need to fall back to the slower, correct lock order.
> > */
> > xfs_iunlink_insert_lock()
> > {
> > get perag;
> > lock_perag();
> > if (!tail empty)
> > return;
> > if (trylock AGI)
> > return;
>
> (adding some notes here, this patch doesn't use try lock here
> finally but unlock perag and take AGI and relock and recheck tail_empty....
> since the tail non-empty is rare...)
*nod*
My point was largely that this sort of thing is really obvious and
easy to optimise once the locking is cleanly separated. Adding a
trylock rather than drop/relock is another patch for the series :P
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-09 2:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-07 13:57 [RFC PATCH 0/2] xfs: more unlinked inode list optimization v1 Gao Xiang
2020-07-07 13:57 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] xfs: arrange all unlinked inodes into one list Gao Xiang
2020-07-08 22:33 ` Dave Chinner
2020-07-09 0:17 ` Gao Xiang
2020-07-07 13:57 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] xfs: don't access AGI on unlinked inodes if it can Gao Xiang
2020-07-08 17:03 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-07-08 23:40 ` Gao Xiang
2020-07-08 23:33 ` Dave Chinner
2020-07-09 0:55 ` Gao Xiang
2020-07-09 2:32 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2020-07-09 10:36 ` Gao Xiang
2020-07-09 10:47 ` Gao Xiang
2020-07-09 22:36 ` Dave Chinner
2020-07-24 6:12 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] xfs: more unlinked inode list optimization v2 Gao Xiang
2020-07-24 6:12 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] xfs: arrange all unlinked inodes into one list Gao Xiang
2020-07-24 6:12 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] xfs: introduce perag iunlink lock Gao Xiang
2020-07-24 6:12 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] xfs: insert unlinked inodes from tail Gao Xiang
2020-08-18 13:30 ` [RFC PATCH v4 0/3] xfs: more unlinked inode list optimization v4 Gao Xiang
2020-08-18 13:30 ` [RFC PATCH v4 1/3] xfs: get rid of unused pagi_unlinked_hash Gao Xiang
2020-08-19 0:54 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-08-21 1:09 ` Dave Chinner
2020-08-18 13:30 ` [RFC PATCH v4 2/3] xfs: introduce perag iunlink lock Gao Xiang
2020-08-19 1:06 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-08-19 1:23 ` Gao Xiang
2020-08-18 13:30 ` [RFC PATCH v4 3/3] xfs: insert unlinked inodes from tail Gao Xiang
2020-08-19 0:53 ` [RFC PATCH v4 0/3] xfs: more unlinked inode list optimization v4 Darrick J. Wong
2020-08-19 1:14 ` Gao Xiang
2020-08-20 2:46 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-08-20 4:01 ` Gao Xiang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200709023246.GR2005@dread.disaster.area \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=hsiangkao@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).