Re: [PATCH 01/20] fsnotify: Rearrange fast path to minimise overhead when there is no watcher

[Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>]

On Fri 12-06-20 12:33:24, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
> 
> The fsnotify paths are trivial to hit even when there are no watchers and
> they are surprisingly expensive. For example, every successful vfs_write()
> hits fsnotify_modify which calls both fsnotify_parent and fsnotify unless
> FMODE_NONOTIFY is set which is an internal flag invisible to userspace.
> As it stands, fsnotify_parent is a guaranteed functional call even if there
> are no watchers and fsnotify() does a substantial amount of unnecessary
> work before it checks if there are any watchers. A perf profile showed
> that applying mnt->mnt_fsnotify_mask in fnotify() was almost half of the
> total samples taken in that function during a test. This patch rearranges
> the fast paths to reduce the amount of work done when there are no
> watchers.
> 
> The test motivating this was "perf bench sched messaging --pipe". Despite
> the fact the pipes are anonymous, fsnotify is still called a lot and
> the overhead is noticeable even though it's completely pointless. It's
> likely the overhead is negligible for real IO so this is an extreme
> example. This is a comparison of hackbench using processes and pipes on
> a 1-socket machine with 8 CPU threads without fanotify watchers.
> 
>                               5.7.0                  5.7.0
>                             vanilla      fastfsnotify-v1r1
> Amean     1       0.4837 (   0.00%)      0.4630 *   4.27%*
> Amean     3       1.5447 (   0.00%)      1.4557 (   5.76%)
> Amean     5       2.6037 (   0.00%)      2.4363 (   6.43%)
> Amean     7       3.5987 (   0.00%)      3.4757 (   3.42%)
> Amean     12      5.8267 (   0.00%)      5.6983 (   2.20%)
> Amean     18      8.4400 (   0.00%)      8.1327 (   3.64%)
> Amean     24     11.0187 (   0.00%)     10.0290 *   8.98%*
> Amean     30     13.1013 (   0.00%)     12.8510 (   1.91%)
> Amean     32     13.9190 (   0.00%)     13.2410 (   4.87%)
> 
>                        5.7.0       5.7.0
>                      vanilla fastfsnotify-v1r1
> Duration User         157.05      152.79
> Duration System      1279.98     1219.32
> Duration Elapsed      182.81      174.52
> 
> This is showing that the latencies are improved by roughly 2-9%. The
> variability is not shown but some of these results are within the noise
> as this workload heavily overloads the machine. That said, the system CPU
> usage is reduced by quite a bit so it makes sense to avoid the overhead
> even if it is a bit tricky to detect at times. A perf profile of just 1
> group of tasks showed that 5.14% of samples taken were in either fsnotify()
> or fsnotify_parent(). With the patch, 2.8% of samples were in fsnotify,
> mostly function entry and the initial check for watchers.  The check for
> watchers is complicated enough that inlining it may be controversial.
> 
> [Amir] Slightly simplify with mnt_or_sb_mask => marks_mask
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> ---
>  fs/notify/fsnotify.c             | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
>  include/linux/fsnotify.h         | 10 ++++++++++
>  include/linux/fsnotify_backend.h |  4 ++--
>  3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/notify/fsnotify.c b/fs/notify/fsnotify.c
> index 72d332ce8e12..d59a58d10b84 100644
> --- a/fs/notify/fsnotify.c
> +++ b/fs/notify/fsnotify.c
> @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ void __fsnotify_update_child_dentry_flags(struct inode *inode)
>  }
>  
>  /* Notify this dentry's parent about a child's events. */
> -int fsnotify_parent(struct dentry *dentry, __u32 mask, const void *data,
> +int __fsnotify_parent(struct dentry *dentry, __u32 mask, const void *data,
>  		    int data_type)
>  {
>  	struct dentry *parent;

Hum, should we actually remove the DCACHE_FSNOTIFY_PARENT_WATCHED check
from here when it's moved to fsnotify_parent() inline helper?

> @@ -315,17 +315,11 @@ int fsnotify(struct inode *to_tell, __u32 mask, const void *data, int data_is,
>  	struct fsnotify_iter_info iter_info = {};
>  	struct super_block *sb = to_tell->i_sb;
>  	struct mount *mnt = NULL;
> -	__u32 mnt_or_sb_mask = sb->s_fsnotify_mask;
>  	int ret = 0;
> -	__u32 test_mask = (mask & ALL_FSNOTIFY_EVENTS);
> +	__u32 test_mask, marks_mask;
>  
> -	if (path) {
> +	if (path)
>  		mnt = real_mount(path->mnt);
> -		mnt_or_sb_mask |= mnt->mnt_fsnotify_mask;
> -	}
> -	/* An event "on child" is not intended for a mount/sb mark */
> -	if (mask & FS_EVENT_ON_CHILD)
> -		mnt_or_sb_mask = 0;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Optimization: srcu_read_lock() has a memory barrier which can
> @@ -337,13 +331,22 @@ int fsnotify(struct inode *to_tell, __u32 mask, const void *data, int data_is,
>  	if (!to_tell->i_fsnotify_marks && !sb->s_fsnotify_marks &&
>  	    (!mnt || !mnt->mnt_fsnotify_marks))
>  		return 0;
> +
> +	/* An event "on child" is not intended for a mount/sb mark */
> +	marks_mask = to_tell->i_fsnotify_mask;
> +	if (!(mask & FS_EVENT_ON_CHILD)) {
> +		marks_mask |= sb->s_fsnotify_mask;
> +		if (mnt)
> +			marks_mask |= mnt->mnt_fsnotify_mask;
> +	}
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * if this is a modify event we may need to clear the ignored masks
>  	 * otherwise return if neither the inode nor the vfsmount/sb care about
>  	 * this type of event.
>  	 */
> -	if (!(mask & FS_MODIFY) &&
> -	    !(test_mask & (to_tell->i_fsnotify_mask | mnt_or_sb_mask)))
> +	test_mask = (mask & ALL_FSNOTIFY_EVENTS);
> +	if (!(mask & FS_MODIFY) && !(test_mask & marks_mask))
>  		return 0;

Otherwise the patch looks good. One observation though: The (mask &
FS_MODIFY) check means that all vfs_write() calls end up going through the
"slower" path iterating all mark types and checking whether there are marks
anyway. That could be relatively simply optimized using a hidden mask flag
like FS_ALWAYS_RECEIVE_MODIFY which would be set when there's some mark
needing special handling of FS_MODIFY... Not sure if we care enough at this
point...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR