Linux-XFS Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
	Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] xfs: don't access AGI on unlinked inodes if it can
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 12:32:46 +1000
Message-ID: <20200709023246.GR2005@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200709005526.GC15249@xiangao.remote.csb>

On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 08:55:26AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 09:33:11AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 09:57:41PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > > Currently, we use AGI buffer lock to protect in-memory linked list for
> > > unlinked inodes but since it's not necessary to modify AGI unless the
> > > head of the unlinked list is modified. So let's removing the AGI buffer
> > > modification dependency if possible, including 1) adding another per-AG
> > > dedicated lock to protect the whole list and 2) inserting unlinked
> > > inodes from tail.
> > > 
> > > For 2), the tail of bucket 0 is now recorded in perag for xfs_iunlink()
> > > to use. xfs_iunlink_remove() still support old multiple short bucket
> > > lists for recovery code.
> > 
> > I would split this into two separate patches. One to move to a perag
> > based locking strategy, another to change from head to tail
> > addition as they are largely independent algorithmic changes.
> 
> Yes, that is much better from the perspective of spilting patches and
> I thought that before. It seems that is like 2 steps but the proposed
> target solution is as a whole (in other words, 2 steps are code-related)
> and I'm not sure how large these code is sharable or can be inherited
> but rather than introduce some code in patch 2 and then remove immediately
> and turn into a new code in patch 3). I'm not sure how large logic could
> be sharable between these 2 dependent steps so I didn't do that.
> 
> I will spilt patches in the next RFC version to make a try.

Thanks!

[snip]


> > i.e. this:
> > 
> > xfs_iunlink()
> > {
> > 
> > 	get locks
> > 	do list insert
> > 	drop locks
> > }
> > 
> > Is better for understanding, maintenance and future modification
> > than:
> > 
> > xfs_iunlink()
> > {
> > 
> > 	get perag
> > 	lock perag
> > 	look at tail of list
> > 	if (empty) {
> > 		unlock perag
> > 		read/lock AGI
> > 		lock perag
> > 		look at tail of list
> > 		if (empty)
> > 			do head insert
> > 			goto out
> > 	}
> > 	do tail insert
> > out:
> > 	update inode/pag tails
> > 	unlock
> > 	drop perag
> > }
> > 
> > It's trivial for a reader to understand what the first version of
> > xfs_iunlink() is going to do without needing to understand the
> > intraccies of the locking strategies. However, it takes time and
> > effort to undestand exactly waht the second one is doing because
> > it's not clear where lock ends and list modifications start, nor
> > what the locking rules are for the different modifications that are
> > being made. Essentially, it goes back to the complex
> > locking-intertwined-with-modification-algorithm problem the current
> > TOT code has.
> > 
> > I'd much prefer to see something like this:
> > 
> > /*
> >  * Inode allocation in the O_TMPFILE path defines the AGI/unlinked
> >  * list lock order as being AGI->perag unlinked list lock. We are
> >  * inverting it here as the fast path tail addition does not need to
> >  * modify the AGI at all. Hence we only need the AGI lock if the
> >  * tail is empty, but if we fail to get it without blocking then we
> >  * need to fall back to the slower, correct lock order.
> >  */
> > xfs_iunlink_insert_lock()
> > {
> > 	get perag;
> > 	lock_perag();
> > 	if (!tail empty)
> > 		return;
> > 	if (trylock AGI)
> > 		return;
> 
> (adding some notes here, this patch doesn't use try lock here
>  finally but unlock perag and take AGI and relock and recheck tail_empty....
>  since the tail non-empty is rare...)

*nod*

My point was largely that this sort of thing is really obvious and
easy to optimise once the locking is cleanly separated. Adding a
trylock rather than drop/relock is another patch for the series :P

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

  reply index

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-07 13:57 [RFC PATCH 0/2] xfs: more unlinked inode list optimization v1 Gao Xiang
2020-07-07 13:57 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] xfs: arrange all unlinked inodes into one list Gao Xiang
2020-07-08 22:33   ` Dave Chinner
2020-07-09  0:17     ` Gao Xiang
2020-07-07 13:57 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] xfs: don't access AGI on unlinked inodes if it can Gao Xiang
2020-07-08 17:03   ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-07-08 23:40     ` Gao Xiang
2020-07-08 23:33   ` Dave Chinner
2020-07-09  0:55     ` Gao Xiang
2020-07-09  2:32       ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2020-07-09 10:36         ` Gao Xiang
2020-07-09 10:47           ` Gao Xiang
2020-07-09 22:36           ` Dave Chinner
2020-07-24  6:12 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] xfs: more unlinked inode list optimization v2 Gao Xiang
2020-07-24  6:12   ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] xfs: arrange all unlinked inodes into one list Gao Xiang
2020-07-24  6:12   ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] xfs: introduce perag iunlink lock Gao Xiang
2020-07-24  6:12   ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] xfs: insert unlinked inodes from tail Gao Xiang
2020-08-18 13:30   ` [RFC PATCH v4 0/3] xfs: more unlinked inode list optimization v4 Gao Xiang
2020-08-18 13:30     ` [RFC PATCH v4 1/3] xfs: get rid of unused pagi_unlinked_hash Gao Xiang
2020-08-19  0:54       ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-08-21  1:09         ` Dave Chinner
2020-08-18 13:30     ` [RFC PATCH v4 2/3] xfs: introduce perag iunlink lock Gao Xiang
2020-08-19  1:06       ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-08-19  1:23         ` Gao Xiang
2020-08-18 13:30     ` [RFC PATCH v4 3/3] xfs: insert unlinked inodes from tail Gao Xiang
2020-08-19  0:53     ` [RFC PATCH v4 0/3] xfs: more unlinked inode list optimization v4 Darrick J. Wong
2020-08-19  1:14       ` Gao Xiang
2020-08-20  2:46     ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-08-20  4:01       ` Gao Xiang

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=20200709023246.GR2005@dread.disaster.area \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
    --cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=hsiangkao@redhat.com \
    --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

Linux-XFS Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/0 linux-xfs/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-xfs linux-xfs/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs \
		linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-xfs

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-xfs


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git