From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:34510 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726844AbeJEIgc (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Oct 2018 04:36:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 02:40:02 +0100 From: Al Viro To: NeilBrown Cc: Andrew Morton , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Florian Weimer , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Josh Triplett Subject: Re: [PATCH - resend] VFS: use synchronize_rcu_expedited() in namespace_unlock() Message-ID: <20181005014002.GS32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <87y3nyd4pu.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20171026122743.GX3659@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20171127144125.GF3624@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87induxd3u.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <87tvm1rxme.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87tvm1rxme.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:27:37AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > The synchronize_rcu() in namespace_unlock() is called every time > a filesystem is unmounted. If a great many filesystems are mounted, > this can cause a noticable slow-down in, for example, system shutdown. > > The sequence: > mkdir -p /tmp/Mtest/{0..5000} > time for i in /tmp/Mtest/*; do mount -t tmpfs tmpfs $i ; done > time umount /tmp/Mtest/* > > on a 4-cpu VM can report 8 seconds to mount the tmpfs filesystems, and > 100 seconds to unmount them. > > Boot the same VM with 1 CPU and it takes 18 seconds to mount the > tmpfs filesystems, but only 36 to unmount. > > If we change the synchronize_rcu() to synchronize_rcu_expedited() > the umount time on a 4-cpu VM drop to 0.6 seconds > > I think this 200-fold speed up is worth the slightly high system > impact of using synchronize_rcu_expedited(). > > Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney (from general rcu perspective) > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown > --- > > I posted this last October, then again last November (cc:ing Linus) > Paul is happy enough with it, but no other response. > I'm hoping it can get applied this time.... Umm... IIRC, the last one got sidetracked on the other thing in the series... that was s_anon stuff. I can live with this one; FWIW, what kind of load would trigger the impact of the change? Paul?