linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] xfs: kick extra large ioends to completion workqueue
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 08:44:40 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201006124440.GA50358@bfoster> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201006035537.GD49524@magnolia>

On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 08:55:37PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 11:21:02AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > We've had reports of soft lockup warnings in the iomap ioend
> > completion path due to very large bios and/or bio chains. Divert any
> > ioends with 256k or more pages to process to the workqueue so
> > completion occurs in non-atomic context and can reschedule to avoid
> > soft lockup warnings.
> 
> Hmmmm... is there any way we can just make end_page_writeback faster?
> 

I'm not sure that would help us. It's not doing much work as it is. The
issue is just that we effectively queue so many of them to a single bio
completion due to either bio chaining or the physical page merging
implemented by multipage bvecs.

> TBH it still strikes me as odd that we'd cap ioends this way just to
> cover for the fact that we have to poke each and every page.
> 

I suppose, but it's not like we don't already account for constructing
bios that must be handed off to a workqueue for completion processing.
Also FWIW this doesn't cap ioend size like my original patch does. It
just updates XFS to send them to the completion workqueue.

> (Also, those 'bool atomic' in the other patch make me kind of nervous --
> how do we make sure (from a QA perspective) that nobody gets that wrong?)
> 

Yeah, that's a bit ugly. If somebody has a better idea on the factoring
I'm interested in hearing about it. My understanding is that in_atomic()
is not reliable and/or generally frowned upon, hence the explicit
context parameter.

Also, I don't have the error handy but my development kernel complains
quite clearly if we make a call that can potentially sleep in atomic
context. I believe this is the purpose of the __might_sleep()
(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP) annotation.

Brian

> --D
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > v2:
> > - Fix type in macro.
> > 
> >  fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c | 10 +++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
> > index 3e061ea99922..c00cc0624986 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
> > @@ -30,6 +30,13 @@ XFS_WPC(struct iomap_writepage_ctx *ctx)
> >  	return container_of(ctx, struct xfs_writepage_ctx, ctx);
> >  }
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * Kick extra large ioends off to the workqueue. Completion will process a lot
> > + * of pages for a large bio or bio chain and a non-atomic context is required to
> > + * reschedule and avoid soft lockup warnings.
> > + */
> > +#define XFS_LARGE_IOEND	(262144ULL << PAGE_SHIFT)
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * Fast and loose check if this write could update the on-disk inode size.
> >   */
> > @@ -239,7 +246,8 @@ static inline bool xfs_ioend_needs_workqueue(struct iomap_ioend *ioend)
> >  {
> >  	return ioend->io_private ||
> >  		ioend->io_type == IOMAP_UNWRITTEN ||
> > -		(ioend->io_flags & IOMAP_F_SHARED);
> > +		(ioend->io_flags & IOMAP_F_SHARED) ||
> > +		(ioend->io_size >= XFS_LARGE_IOEND);
> >  }
> >  
> >  STATIC void
> > -- 
> > 2.25.4
> > 
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2020-10-06 12:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-10-02 15:33 [PATCH 0/2] iomap: avoid soft lockup warnings on large ioends Brian Foster
2020-10-02 15:33 ` [PATCH 1/2] iomap: resched ioend completion when in non-atomic context Brian Foster
2020-10-02 15:33 ` [PATCH 2/2] xfs: kick extra large ioends to completion workqueue Brian Foster
2020-10-02 16:19   ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-10-02 16:38     ` Brian Foster
2020-10-03  0:26   ` kernel test robot
2020-10-05 15:21   ` [PATCH v2 " Brian Foster
2020-10-06  3:55     ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-10-06 12:44       ` Brian Foster [this message]
2021-05-06 19:31         ` Darrick J. Wong
2021-05-07 14:06           ` Brian Foster
2021-05-07 14:40             ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-05-10  2:45               ` Dave Chinner
2020-10-06 14:07       ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-05-06 19:34         ` Darrick J. Wong
2021-05-06 19:45           ` Matthew Wilcox

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=20201006124440.GA50358@bfoster \
    --to=bfoster@redhat.com \
    --cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --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).