From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B803C433ED for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 01:32:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35CB8611BF for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 01:32:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232838AbhEQBd2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2021 21:33:28 -0400 Received: from new3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.229]:53663 "EHLO new3-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229479AbhEQBd2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2021 21:33:28 -0400 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F5F5805EE; Sun, 16 May 2021 21:32:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 16 May 2021 21:32:12 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=themaw.net; h= message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :content-type:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm3; bh= cxZjKmHMz/D7TD+kHqFRoA9O3quyMMGlHAotgmFEv54=; b=wMwnNrN5q9I/yaK4 gdjJkOIdJPg6y6QKtBnyysyzDn2Qx6UAs7M3TfRQcTJdWfDv8AfEODVg136IcVLM nP+moKJrzwrSwiqlSOGN9yv6YbzJKl8QTZNOZgwvzM9at+wrHxGGIz3DkuTKRTdO 608GJUooEH3hdomZHE6w/uOcqH6Kfpqs2fCUsZG/SziYjorpqFDrtwPxZ7jo+tbN Y8l2ZE9gscLlMdPULTYesbX/AJAqYrCgFk8yeobya4CjkHtLT7/I6aU/iTlyCn1e INW19teVcqxzQPmRmbJQLPYisWqwl33pPm2r+vA8LImeyPci73EPk3QRaiY7sBqf MXKZug== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=cxZjKmHMz/D7TD+kHqFRoA9O3quyMMGlHAotgmFEv 54=; b=YsMjOMVUhsTARBJ1CYIl/nKSxTr5SuhHh9/fgMEocndRPGWzOrNlvPYEk 4VXJVhMLfrLOhmGjdRXlDBgtzI3G2M4Wv28nFywPrVd+MouOAwq0rDTeUrKml8Hf t9JwSbjL3ERww9JI//Q09426NEBCC9IK/ZQYqaHtjJFS4y2dPMLMzYrF45m/O4tr OsjVC2dyZL9eZcaUfhWjSq5g9rKNP02WAEemBPsJDssxbwrt2f8qB8xcuKz29J8C IfvKej7Qmr07UwlwLxsUfNn5Ivbr+OQSv/lzDFcHNeFcF6AqKQ6gHpsK07VVWSui ADk8OKpvC3UsrcGjv3Jmu4rJJfCng== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdeigedggeejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkffuhffvffgjfhgtfggggfesthekredttderjeenucfhrhhomhepkfgrnhcu mfgvnhhtuceorhgrvhgvnhesthhhvghmrgifrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpe elgedtleeltdffteejudetfefgieehheekffehuefhkeegkeeuleehffehieegjeenucff ohhmrghinhepghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhmpdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghenucfkphepuddtie drieelrddvfedurdeggeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgr ihhlfhhrohhmpehrrghvvghnsehthhgvmhgrfidrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from mickey.long.domain.name.themaw.net (106-69-231-44.dyn.iinet.net.au [106.69.231.44]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 16 May 2021 21:32:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency improvement From: Ian Kent To: Fox Chen Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Tejun Heo , Al Viro , Eric Sandeen , Brice Goglin , Rick Lindsley , David Howells , Miklos Szeredi , Marcelo Tosatti , linux-fsdevel , Kernel Mailing List Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 09:32:03 +0800 In-Reply-To: References: <162077975380.14498.11347675368470436331.stgit@web.messagingengine.com> <4eae44395ad321d05f47571b58fe3fe2413b6b36.camel@themaw.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.4 (3.38.4-1.fc33) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2021-05-14 at 10:34 +0800, Fox Chen wrote: > On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 9:34 AM Ian Kent wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2021-05-13 at 23:37 +0800, Fox Chen wrote: > > > Hi Ian > > > > > > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 10:10 PM Ian Kent > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2021-05-12 at 16:54 +0800, Fox Chen wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 4:47 PM Fox Chen > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > I ran it on my benchmark ( > > > > > > https://github.com/foxhlchen/sysfs_benchmark). > > > > > > > > > > > > machine: aws c5 (Intel Xeon with 96 logical cores) > > > > > > kernel: v5.12 > > > > > > benchmark: create 96 threads and bind them to each core > > > > > > then > > > > > > run > > > > > > open+read+close on a sysfs file simultaneously for 1000 > > > > > > times. > > > > > > result: > > > > > > Without the patchset, an open+read+close operation takes > > > > > > 550- > > > > > > 570 > > > > > > us, > > > > > > perf shows significant time(>40%) spending on mutex_lock. > > > > > > After applying it, it takes 410-440 us for that operation > > > > > > and > > > > > > perf > > > > > > shows only ~4% time on mutex_lock. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's weird, I don't see a huge performance boost compared > > > > > > to > > > > > > v2, > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > > I meant I don't see a huge performance boost here and it's > > > > > way > > > > > worse > > > > > than v2. > > > > > IIRC, for v2 fastest one only takes 40us > > > > > > > > Thanks Fox, > > > > > > > > I'll have a look at those reports but this is puzzling. > > > > > > > > Perhaps the added overhead of the check if an update is > > > > needed is taking more than expected and more than just > > > > taking the lock and being done with it. Then there's > > > > the v2 series ... I'll see if I can dig out your reports > > > > on those too. > > > > > > Apologies, I was mistaken, it's compared to V3, not V2.  The > > > previous > > > benchmark report is here. > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/CAC2o3DKNc=sL2n8291Dpiyb0bRHaX=nd33ogvO_LkJqpBj-YmA@mail.gmail.com/ > > > > Are all these tests using a single file name in the open/read/close > > loop? > > Yes,  because It's easy to implement yet enough to trigger the > mutex_lock. > > And you are right It's not a real-life pattern, but on the bright > side, it proves there is no original mutex_lock problem anymore. :) I've been looking at your reports and they are quite interesting. > > > That being the case the per-object inode lock will behave like a > > mutex and once contention occurs any speed benefits of a spinlock > > over a mutex (or rwsem) will disappear. > > > > In this case changing from a write lock to a read lock in those > > functions and adding the inode mutex will do nothing but add the > > overhead of taking the read lock. And similarly adding the update > > check function also just adds overhead and, as we see, once > > contention starts it has a cumulative effect that's often not > > linear. > > > > The whole idea of a read lock/per-object spin lock was to reduce > > the possibility of contention for paths other than the same path > > while not impacting same path accesses too much for an overall > > gain. Based on this I'm thinking the update check function is > > probably not worth keeping, it just adds unnecessary churn and > > has a negative impact for same file contention access patterns. The reports indicate (to me anyway) that the slowdown isn't due to kernfs. It looks more like kernfs is now putting pressure on the VFS, mostly on the file table lock but it looks like there's a mild amount of contention on a few other locks as well now. That's a whole different problem and those file table handling functions don't appear to have any obvious problems so they are doing what they have to do and that can't be avoided. That's definitely out of scope for these changes. And, as you'd expect, once any appreciable amount of contention happens our measurements go out the window, certainly with respect to kernfs. It also doesn't change my option that checking if an inode attribute update is needed in kernfs isn't useful since, IIUC that file table lock contention would result even if you were using different paths. So I'll drop that patch from the series. Ian > > > > I think that using multiple paths, at least one per test process > > (so if you are running 16 processes use at least 16 different > > files, the same in each process), and selecting one at random > > for each loop of the open would better simulate real world > > access patterns. > > > > > > Ian > > > > > thanks, > fox