From: Dave Chinner <email@example.com>
To: Paul Menzel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: LKML <email@example.com>,
Subject: Re: Minimum inode cache size? (was: Slow file operations on file server with 30 TB hardware RAID and 100 TB software RAID)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 07:53:20 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210826215320.GO3657114@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 12:41:25PM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> Dear Linux folks,
> > > The current explanation is, that over night several maintenance
> > > scripts like backup/mirroring and accounting scripts are run, which
> > > touch all files on the devices. Additionally sometimes other users
> > > run cluster jobs with millions of files on the software RAID. Such
> > > things invalidate the inode cache, and “my” are thrown out. When I
> > > use it afterward it’s slow in the beginning. There is still free
> > > memory during these times according to `top`.
Yup. Your inodes are not in use, so they get cycled out of memory
for other inodes that are in active use.
> > $ free -h
> > total used free shared buff/cache available
> > Mem: 94G 8.3G 5.3G 2.3M 80G 83G
> > Swap: 0B 0B 0B
> > > Does that sound reasonable with ten million inodes? Is that easily
> > > verifiable?
> > If an inode consume 512 bytes with ten million inodes, that would be
> > around 500 MB, which should easily fit into the cache, so it does not
> > need to be invalidated?
> Something is wrong with that calculation, and the cache size is much bigger.
Inode size on disk != inode size in memory. Typically a clean XFS
inode in memory takes up ~1.1kB, regardless of on-disk size. An
inode that has been dirtied takes about 1.7kB.
> Looking into `/proc/slabinfo` and XFS’ runtime/internal statistics , it
> turns out that the inode cache is likely the problem.
> XFS’ internal stats show that only one third of the inodes requests are
> answered from cache.
> $ grep ^ig /sys/fs/xfs/stats/stats
> ig 1791207386 647353522 20111 1143854223 394 1142080045 10683174
Pretty normal for a machine that has diverse worklaods, large data
sets and fairly constant memory pressure...
> During the problematic time, the SLAB size is around 4 GB and, according to
> slabinfo, the inode cache only has around 200.000 (sometimes even as low as
Yup, that indicates the workload that has been running has been
generating either user space or page cache memory pressure, not
inode cache memory pressure. As a result, memory reclaim has
reclaimed the unused inode caches. This is how things are supposed
to work - the kernel adjusts it's memory usage according what is
consuming memory at the time there is memory demand.
> $ sudo grep inode /proc/slabinfo
> nfs_inode_cache 16 24 1064 3 1 : tunables 24 12 8
> : slabdata 8 8 0
> rpc_inode_cache 94 138 640 6 1 : tunables 54 27 8
> : slabdata 23 23 0
> mqueue_inode_cache 1 4 896 4 1 : tunables 54 27
> 8 : slabdata 1 1 0
> xfs_inode 1693683 1722284 960 4 1 : tunables 54 27
> 8 : slabdata 430571 430571 0
> ext2_inode_cache 0 0 768 5 1 : tunables 54 27 8
> : slabdata 0 0 0
> reiser_inode_cache 0 0 760 5 1 : tunables 54 27
> 8 : slabdata 0 0 0
> hugetlbfs_inode_cache 2 12 608 6 1 : tunables 54 27
> 8 : slabdata 2 2 0
> sock_inode_cache 346 670 768 5 1 : tunables 54 27 8
> : slabdata 134 134 0
> proc_inode_cache 121 288 656 6 1 : tunables 54 27 8
> : slabdata 48 48 0
> shmem_inode_cache 2249 2827 696 11 2 : tunables 54 27 8
> : slabdata 257 257 0
> inode_cache 209098 209482 584 7 1 : tunables 54 27 8
> : slabdata 29926 29926 0
> (What is the difference between `xfs_inode` and `inode_cache`?)
"inode_cache" is the generic inode slab cache used for things like
/proc and other VFS level psuedo filesytems. "xfs_inode_cache" is
the inodes used by XFS.
> Then going through all the files with `find -ls`, the inode cache grows to
> four to five million and the SLAB size grows to around 8 GB. Over night it
> shrinks back to the numbers above and the page cache grows back.
Yup, that's caching all the inodes the find traverses because it is
accessing the inodes and not just reading the directory structure.
There's likely 4-5 million inodes in that directory structure.
This is normal - the kernel is adjusting it's memory usage according
to the workload that is currently running. However, if you don't
access those inodes again, and the system is put under memory
pressure, they'll get reclaimed and the memory used for whatever is
demanding memory at that point in time.
Again, this is normal behaviour for machines with mulitple discrete,
diverse workloads with individual data sets and memory demand that,
in aggregate, are larger than the machine has the memory to hold. At
some point, we have to give back kernel memory so the current
application and data set can run efficiently from RAM...
> In the discussions , adji`vfs_cache_pressure` is recommended, but –
> besides setting it to 0 – it only seems to delay the shrinking of the cache.
> (As it’s an integer 1 is the lowest non-zero (positive) number, which would
> delay it by a factor of 100.
That's exactly what vfs_cache_pressure is intended to do - you can
slow down the reclaim of inodes and dentries, but if you have enough
memory demand for long enough, it will not prevent indoes that have
not been accessed for hours from being reclaimed.
Of course, setting it so zero is also behaving as expected - that
prevents memory reclaim from reclaiming dentries and inodes and
other filesystem caches. This is absolutely not recommended as it
can result in all of memory being filled with filesystem caches and
the system can then OOM in unrecoverable ways because the memory
held in VFS caches cannot be reclaimed.
> Is there a way to specify the minimum numbers of entries in the inode cache,
> or a minimum SLAB size up to that the caches should not be decreased?
You have a workload resource control problem, not an inode cache
problem. This is a problem control groups are intended to solve. For
controlling memory usage behaviour of workloads, see:
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-26 21:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-20 14:31 Slow file operations on file server with 10 TB hardware RAID and 100 TB software RAID Paul Menzel
2021-08-20 14:39 ` Paul Menzel
2021-08-26 10:41 ` Minimum inode cache size? (was: Slow file operations on file server with 30 TB hardware RAID and 100 TB software RAID) Paul Menzel
2021-08-26 16:49 ` Donald Buczek
2021-08-26 21:53 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
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: Minimum inode cache size? (was: Slow file operations on file server with 30 TB hardware RAID and 100 TB software RAID)' \
* 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).