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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6A06C433EF for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 16:10:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S243710AbhK3QOM (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2021 11:14:12 -0500 Received: from sender2-pp-o92.zoho.com.cn ([163.53.93.251]:25301 "EHLO sender2-pp-o92.zoho.com.cn" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S244293AbhK3QN2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2021 11:13:28 -0500 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1638288556; cv=none; d=zoho.com.cn; s=zohoarc; b=SBY1/pLmOX7pw9gnrP64yI13o3y3rwmACsQT6miGYjao3G43Pib5aSAtBCpUoYfQWpEoVmb39qccy3O7M6YGX4tIcBWFpfpf9M9orCLS08KxaI6DPSHW6KCoNiJgmFQbfYlS1+1anaGIkwSMHvaBYdR5FG1c65mM88r6r3U61io= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zoho.com.cn; s=zohoarc; t=1638288556; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:Subject:To; bh=le2jP4zZr2Oj/4+xBXN47Nj05pQ6pMRytJX82KSxAyM=; b=aR802JcHFkC1xkEUtgF7cxnZFIZLOQLItak+uJEY9BOalqEpCY70pCz6P2rh/SO8ItnFeosxsOw/do1aQfaphIWHc3k9EdUec/Mg8RWPjKSsEUxvE7hEUgDI3RIRn4gIrnV86QrdDgmHys+k80Yj6rgoo+px3TWtnH0cK1/m5gs= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zoho.com.cn; dkim=pass header.i=mykernel.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cgxu519@mykernel.net; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1638288556; s=zohomail; d=mykernel.net; i=cgxu519@mykernel.net; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=le2jP4zZr2Oj/4+xBXN47Nj05pQ6pMRytJX82KSxAyM=; b=EA/2d5A0lj8e2QXiC2ibVVjLV0cCtPbMbbT+HwtBbmlv+Z6cPt/gb2qFi7q/2vAT xLfowkislQHJVFiE3L5fJnZN4kvVAhM0163TjHZywYfSmr3e+FNjq3/dRMy64XAsLpw 8sOP89rVeSEgqCe5dDPd0plG/OdW3rO6RQA0ofnY= Received: from mail.baihui.com by mx.zoho.com.cn with SMTP id 1638288554514727.797018234731; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 00:09:14 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 00:09:14 +0800 From: Chengguang Xu Reply-To: cgxu519@mykernel.net To: "Jan Kara" Cc: "Miklos Szeredi" , "Amir Goldstein" , "linux-fsdevel" , "overlayfs" , "linux-kernel" , "ronyjin" , "charliecgxu" Message-ID: <17d719b79f9.d89bf95117881.5882353172682156775@mykernel.net> In-Reply-To: <20211130112206.GE7174@quack2.suse.cz> References: <17c5adfe5ea.12f1be94625921.4478415437452327206@mykernel.net> <17d268ba3ce.1199800543649.1713755891767595962@mykernel.net> <17d2c858d76.d8a27d876510.8802992623030721788@mykernel.net> <17d31bf3d62.1119ad4be10313.6832593367889908304@mykernel.net> <20211118112315.GD13047@quack2.suse.cz> <17d32ecf46e.124314f8f672.8832559275193368959@mykernel.net> <20211118164349.GB8267@quack2.suse.cz> <17d36d37022.1227b6f102736.1047689367927335302@mykernel.net> <20211130112206.GE7174@quack2.suse.cz> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 06/10] ovl: implement overlayfs' ->write_inode operation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Importance: Medium User-Agent: ZohoCN Mail X-Mailer: ZohoCN Mail Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org ---- =E5=9C=A8 =E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=BA=8C, 2021-11-30 19:22:06 Jan Kara <= jack@suse.cz> =E6=92=B0=E5=86=99 ---- > On Fri 19-11-21 14:12:46, Chengguang Xu wrote: > > ---- =E5=9C=A8 =E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=BA=94, 2021-11-19 00:43:49 Jan K= ara =E6=92=B0=E5=86=99 ---- > > > On Thu 18-11-21 20:02:09, Chengguang Xu wrote: > > > > ---- =E5=9C=A8 =E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E5=9B=9B, 2021-11-18 19:23:15 = Jan Kara =E6=92=B0=E5=86=99 ---- > > > > > On Thu 18-11-21 14:32:36, Chengguang Xu wrote: > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > ---- =E5=9C=A8 =E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=B8=89, 2021-11-17 14:1= 1:29 Chengguang Xu =E6=92=B0=E5=86=99 ---- > > > > > > > ---- =E5=9C=A8 =E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=BA=8C, 2021-11-16 2= 0:35:55 Miklos Szeredi =E6=92=B0=E5=86=99 ---- > > > > > > > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 at 03:20, Chengguang Xu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- =E5=9C=A8 =E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E5=9B=9B, 2021-10= -07 21:34:19 Miklos Szeredi =E6=92=B0=E5=86=99 ---- > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 15:10, Chengguang Xu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > However that wasn't what I was asking about.= AFAICS ->write_inode() > > > > > > > > > > > > won't start write back for dirty pages. Ma= ybe I'm missing something, > > > > > > > > > > > > but there it looks as if nothing will actual= ly trigger writeback for > > > > > > > > > > > > dirty pages in upper inode. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, page writeback on upper inode will be= triggered by overlayfs ->writepages and > > > > > > > > > > > overlayfs' ->writepages will be called by vfs w= riteback function (i.e writeback_sb_inodes). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But wouldn't it be simpler to do this from ->writ= e_inode()? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I.e. call write_inode_now() as suggested by Jan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also could just call mark_inode_dirty() on the ov= erlay inode > > > > > > > > > > regardless of the dirty flags on the upper inode = since it shouldn't > > > > > > > > > > matter and results in simpler logic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Miklos=EF=BC=8C > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for delayed response for this, I've been busy = with another project. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with your suggesion above and further more h= ow about just mark overlay inode dirty > > > > > > > > > when it has upper inode? This approach will make mar= king dirtiness simple enough. > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting that all non-lower overlay inodes s= hould always be dirty? > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > The logic would be simple, no doubt, but there's the c= ost to walking > > > > > > > > those overlay inodes which don't have a dirty upper in= ode, right? =20 > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > That's true. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > Can you quantify this cost with a benchmark? Can be t= otally synthetic, > > > > > > > > e.g. lookup a million upper files without modifying th= em, then call > > > > > > > > syncfs. > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > No problem, I'll do some tests for the performance. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > Hi Miklos, > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > I did some rough tests and the results like below. In pract= ice, I don't > > > > > > think that 1.3s extra time of syncfs will cause significant = problem. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > >=20 > > > > > Well, burning 1.3s worth of CPU time for doing nothing seems l= ike quite a > > > > > bit to me. I understand this is with 1000000 inodes but althou= gh that is > > > > > quite a few it is not unheard of. If there would be several co= ntainers > > > > > calling sync_fs(2) on the machine they could easily hog the ma= chine... That > > > > > is why I was originally against keeping overlay inodes always = dirty and > > > > > wanted their dirtiness to at least roughly track the real need= to do > > > > > writeback. > > > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > > Hi Jan, > > > >=20 > > > > Actually, the time on user and sys are almost same with directly = excute syncfs on underlying fs. > > > > IMO, it only extends syncfs(2) waiting time for perticular contai= ner but not burning cpu. > > > > What am I missing? > > >=20 > > > Ah, right, I've missed that only realtime changed, not systime. I'm= sorry > > > for confusion. But why did the realtime increase so much? Are we wa= iting > > > for some IO? > > >=20 > >=20 > > There are many places to call cond_resched() in writeback process, > > so sycnfs process was scheduled several times. >=20 > I was thinking about this a bit more and I don't think I buy this > explanation. What I rather think is happening is that real work for sync= fs > (writeback_inodes_sb() and sync_inodes_sb() calls) gets offloaded to a f= lush > worker. E.g. writeback_inodes_sb() ends up calling > __writeback_inodes_sb_nr() which does: >=20 > bdi_split_work_to_wbs() > wb_wait_for_completion() >=20 > So you don't see the work done in the times accounted to your test > program. But in practice the flush worker is indeed burning 1.3s worth o= f > CPU to scan the 1 million inode list and do nothing. >=20 That makes sense. However, in real container use case, the upper dir is al= ways empty, so I don't think there is meaningful difference compare to accurately marki= ng overlay inode dirty. =20 I'm not very familiar with other use cases of overlayfs except container, s= hould we consider other use cases? Maybe we can also ignore the cpu burden because those use = cases don't have density deployment like container. Thanks, Chengguang