From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:57260 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726286AbeJELFI (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Oct 2018 07:05:08 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w9544Yji066277 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 00:08:19 -0400 Received: from e17.ny.us.ibm.com (e17.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.207]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2mx01s9jus-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 00:08:18 -0400 Received: from localhost by e17.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 00:08:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 21:08:12 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Al Viro Cc: NeilBrown , Andrew Morton , 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() Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com 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> <20181005014002.GS32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181005014002.GS32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Message-Id: <20181005040812.GT2674@linux.ibm.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 02:40:02AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > 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? You lost me with "what kind of load would trigger the impact of the change?", but if you are asking about the downside, that would be IPIs sent from each call to synchronize_rcu_expedited(). But people with things like real-time workloads that therefore don't like those IPIs have a number of options: 1. Boot with rcupdate.rcu_normal=1, which converts all calls to synchronize_rcu_expedited() to synchronize_rcu(). This of course loses the performance gain, but this can be a good tradeoff for real-time workloads. 2. Build with CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y and boot with nohz_full= to cover the CPUs running your real-time workload. Then as long as there is only one runnable usermode task per nohz_full CPU, synchronize_rcu_expedited() will avoid sending IPIs to any of the nohz_full CPUs. 3. Don't do unmounts while your real-time application is running. Probably other options as well, but those are the ones that come immediately to mind. If I missed the point of your question, please help me understand what you are asking for. Thanx, Paul