Re: [PATCH/RFC 00/11] expose btrfs subvols in mount table correctly

From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>,
	David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 00/11] expose btrfs subvols in mount table correctly
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 00:13:31 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YQNEK48+GLDvOx8t@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e75ccfd2-e09f-99b3-b132-3bd69f3c734c@toxicpanda.com>

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 05:30:04PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:

> I don't think anybody has that many file systems.  For btrfs it's a single
> file system.  Think of syncfs, it's going to walk through all of the super
> blocks on the system calling ->sync_fs on each subvol superblock.  Now this
> isn't a huge deal, we could just have some flag that says "I'm not real" or
> even just have anonymous superblocks that don't get added to the global
> super_blocks list, and that would address my main pain points.

Umm...  Aren't the snapshots read-only by definition?

> The second part is inode reclaim.  Again this particular problem could be
> avoided if we had an anonymous superblock that wasn't actually used, but the
> inode lru is per superblock.  Now with reclaim instead of walking all the
> inodes, you're walking a bunch of super blocks and then walking the list of
> inodes within those super blocks.  You're burning CPU cycles because now
> instead of getting big chunks of inodes to dispose, it's spread out across
> many super blocks.
> 
> The other weird thing is the way we apply pressure to shrinker systems.  We
> essentially say "try to evict X objects from your list", which means in this
> case with lots of subvolumes we'd be evicting waaaaay more inodes than you
> were before, likely impacting performance where you have workloads that have
> lots of files open across many subvolumes (which is what FB does with it's
> containers).
> 
> If we want a anonymous superblock per subvolume then the only way it'll work
> is if it's not actually tied into anything, and we still use the primary
> super block for the whole file system.  And if that's what we're going to do
> what's the point of the super block exactly?  This approach that Neil's come
> up with seems like a reasonable solution to me.  Christoph gets his
> separation and /proc/self/mountinfo, and we avoid the scalability headache
> of a billion super blocks.  Thanks,

AFAICS, we also get arseloads of weird corner cases - in particular, Neil's
suggestions re visibility in /proc/mounts look rather arbitrary.

Al, really disliking the entire series...