archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Amir Goldstein <>
To: Dave Chinner <>
Cc: "Darrick J . Wong" <>,
	Christoph Hellwig <>,
	Matthew Wilcox <>,
	linux-xfs <>,
	linux-fsdevel <>
Subject: Re: [POC][PATCH] xfs: reduce ilock contention on buffered randrw workload
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 17:02:33 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190404211730.GD26298@dastard>

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 12:17 AM Dave Chinner <> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 07:57:37PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > This patch improves performance of mixed random rw workload
> > on xfs without relaxing the atomic buffered read/write guaranty
> > that xfs has always provided.
> >
> > We achieve that by calling generic_file_read_iter() twice.
> > Once with a discard iterator to warm up page cache before taking
> > the shared ilock and once again under shared ilock.
> This will race with thing like truncate, hole punching, etc that
> serialise IO and invalidate the page cache for data integrity
> reasons under the IOLOCK. These rely on there being no IO to the
> inode in progress at all to work correctly, which this patch
> violates. IOWs, while this is fast, it is not safe and so not a
> viable approach to solving the problem.

This statement leaves me wondering, if ext4 does not takes
i_rwsem on generic_file_read_iter(), how does ext4 (or any other
fs for that matter) guaranty buffered read synchronization with
truncate, hole punching etc?
The answer in ext4 case is i_mmap_sem, which is read locked
in the page fault handler.

And xfs does the same type of synchronization with MMAPLOCK,
so while my patch may not be safe, I cannot follow why from your
explanation, so please explain if I am missing something.

One thing that Darrick mentioned earlier was that IOLOCK is also
used by xfs to synchronization pNFS leases (probably listed under
'etc' in your explanation). I consent that my patch does not look safe
w.r.t pNFS leases, but that can be sorted out with a hammer
or with finer instruments.

> FYI, I'm working on a range lock implementation that should both
> solve the performance issue and the reader starvation issue at the
> same time by allowing concurrent buffered reads and writes to
> different file ranges.
> IO range locks will allow proper exclusion for other extent
> manipulation operations like fallocate and truncate, and eventually
> even allow truncate, hole punch, file extension, etc to run
> concurrently with other non-overlapping IO. They solve more than
> just the performance issue you are seeing....

I'm glad to hear that. IO range locks are definitely a more wholesome
solution to the problem looking forward.

However, I am still interested to continue the discussion on my POC
patch. One reason is that I am guessing it would be much easier for
distros to backport and pick up to solve performance issues.

Even if my patch doesn't get applied upstream nor picked by distros,
I would still like to understand its flaws and limitations. I know...
if I break it, I get to keep the pieces, but the information that you
provide helps me make my risk assessments.


  reply	other threads:[~2019-04-05 14:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-04 16:57 Amir Goldstein
2019-04-04 21:17 ` Dave Chinner
2019-04-05 14:02   ` Amir Goldstein [this message]
2019-04-07 23:27     ` Dave Chinner
2019-04-08  9:02       ` Amir Goldstein
2019-04-08 14:11         ` Jan Kara
2019-04-08 17:41           ` Amir Goldstein
2019-04-09  8:26             ` Jan Kara
2022-06-17 14:48               ` Amir Goldstein
2022-06-17 15:11                 ` Jan Kara
2022-06-18  8:38                   ` Amir Goldstein
2022-06-20  9:11                     ` Jan Kara
2022-06-21  7:49                       ` Amir Goldstein
2022-06-21  8:59                         ` Jan Kara
2022-06-21 12:53                           ` Amir Goldstein
2022-06-22  3:23                             ` Matthew Wilcox
2022-06-22  9:00                               ` Amir Goldstein
2022-06-22  9:34                                 ` Jan Kara
2022-06-22 16:26                                   ` Amir Goldstein
2019-04-08 11:03       ` Jan Kara
2019-04-22 10:55         ` Boaz Harrosh
2019-04-08 10:33   ` Jan Kara
2019-04-08 16:37     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-04-11  1:11       ` Dave Chinner
2019-04-16 12:22         ` Dave Chinner
2019-04-18  3:10           ` Dave Chinner
2019-04-18 18:21             ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-04-20 23:54               ` Dave Chinner
2019-05-03  4:17                 ` Dave Chinner
2019-05-03  5:17                   ` Dave Chinner

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [POC][PATCH] xfs: reduce ilock contention on buffered randrw workload' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

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).