From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>,
Fox Chen <foxhlchen@gmail.com>,
Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@gmail.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Rick Lindsley <ricklind@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [REPOST PATCH v4 2/5] kernfs: use VFS negative dentry caching
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2021 15:52:10 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <871r9gkpad.fsf@disp2133> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9b62c14a7fe71076107ab6dca9bd9fadac4ea08d.camel@themaw.net> (Ian Kent's message of "Sat, 05 Jun 2021 11:19:34 +0800")
Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> writes:
> On Fri, 2021-06-04 at 09:28 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2021-06-03 at 17:02 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> > > Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> writes:
>> > >
>> > > > On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 19:26, Eric W. Biederman <
>> > > > ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> writes:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > If there are many lookups for non-existent paths these
>> > > > > > negative
>> > > > > > lookups
>> > > > > > can lead to a lot of overhead during path walks.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The VFS allows dentries to be created as negative and
>> > > > > > hashed,
>> > > > > > and caches
>> > > > > > them so they can be used to reduce the fairly high overhead
>> > > > > > alloc/free
>> > > > > > cycle that occurs during these lookups.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
>> > > > > > ---
>> > > > > > fs/kernfs/dir.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> > > > > > ----
>> > > > > > ----------------
>> > > > > > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > diff --git a/fs/kernfs/dir.c b/fs/kernfs/dir.c
>> > > > > > index 4c69e2af82dac..5151c712f06f5 100644
>> > > > > > --- a/fs/kernfs/dir.c
>> > > > > > +++ b/fs/kernfs/dir.c
>> > > > > > @@ -1037,12 +1037,33 @@ static int
>> > > > > > kernfs_dop_revalidate(struct
>> > > > > > dentry *dentry, unsigned int flags)
>> > > > > > if (flags & LOOKUP_RCU)
>> > > > > > return -ECHILD;
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > - /* Always perform fresh lookup for negatives */
>> > > > > > - if (d_really_is_negative(dentry))
>> > > > > > - goto out_bad_unlocked;
>> > > > > > + mutex_lock(&kernfs_mutex);
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > kn = kernfs_dentry_node(dentry);
>> > > > > > - mutex_lock(&kernfs_mutex);
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Why bring kernfs_dentry_node inside the mutex?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The inode lock of the parent should protect negative to
>> > > > > positive
>> > > > > transitions not the kernfs_mutex. So moving the code inside
>> > > > > the mutex looks unnecessary and confusing.
>> > > >
>> > > > Except that d_revalidate() may or may not be called with parent
>> > > > lock
>> > > > held.
>> >
>> > Bringing the kernfs_dentry_node() inside taking the mutex is
>> > probably
>> > wasteful, as you say, oddly the reason I did it that conceptually
>> > it
>> > makes sense to me since the kernfs node is being grabbed. But it
>> > probably isn't possible for a concurrent unlink so is not
>> > necessary.
>> >
>> > Since you feel strongly about I can change it.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > I grant that this works because kernfs_io_lookup today holds
>> > > kernfs_mutex over d_splice_alias.
>> >
>> > Changing that will require some thought but your points about
>> > maintainability are well taken.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > The problem is that the kernfs_mutex only should be protecting
>> > > the
>> > > kernfs data structures not the vfs data structures.
>> > >
>> > > Reading through the code history that looks like a hold over from
>> > > when
>> > > sysfs lived in the dcache before it was reimplemented as a
>> > > distributed
>> > > file system. So it was probably a complete over sight and
>> > > something
>> > > that did not matter.
>> > >
>> > > The big problem is that if the code starts depending upon the
>> > > kernfs_mutex (or the kernfs_rwsem) to provide semantics the rest
>> > > of
>> > > the
>> > > filesystems does not the code will diverge from the rest of the
>> > > filesystems and maintenance will become much more difficult.
>> > >
>> > > Diverging from other filesystems and becoming a maintenance pain
>> > > has
>> > > already been seen once in the life of sysfs and I don't think we
>> > > want
>> > > to
>> > > go back there.
>> > >
>> > > Further extending the scope of lock, when the problem is that the
>> > > locking is causing problems seems like the opposite of the
>> > > direction
>> > > we
>> > > want the code to grow.
>> > >
>> > > I really suspect all we want kernfs_dop_revalidate doing for
>> > > negative
>> > > dentries is something as simple as comparing the timestamp of the
>> > > negative dentry to the timestamp of the parent dentry, and if the
>> > > timestamp has changed perform the lookup. That is roughly what
>> > > nfs does today with negative dentries.
>> > >
>> > > The dentry cache will always lag the kernfs_node data structures,
>> > > and
>> > > that is fundamental. We should take advantage of that to make
>> > > the
>> > > code
>> > > as simple and as fast as we can not to perform lots of work that
>> > > creates
>> > > overhead.
>> > >
>> > > Plus the kernfs data structures should not change much so I
>> > > expect
>> > > there will be effectively 0 penalty in always performing the
>> > > lookup
>> > > of a
>> > > negative dentry when the directory itself has changed.
>> >
>> > This sounds good to me.
>> >
>> > In fact this approach should be able to be used to resolve the
>> > potential race Miklos pointed out in a much simpler way, not to
>> > mention the revalidate simplification itself.
>> >
>> > But isn't knowing whether the directory has changed harder to
>> > do than checking a time stamp?
>> >
>> > Look at kernfs_refresh_inode() and it's callers for example.
>> >
>> > I suspect that would require bringing back the series patch to use
>> > a generation number to identify directory changes (and also getting
>> > rid of the search in revalidate).
>>
>> In essence it is a simple as looking at a sequence number or a
>> timestamp
>> to detect the directory has changed.
>
> Yes, both Miklos and Al suggested using a simple revision to detect
> changes to the parent. I did that early on and I don't think I grokked
> what Al recommended and ended up with something more complex than was
> needed. So I dropped it because I wanted to keep the changes to a
> minimum.
>
> But a quick test, bringing that patch back, and getting rid of the
> search in revalidate works well. It's as effective at eliminating
> contention I saw with d_alloc_parallel() for the case of a lot of
> deterministic accesses to the same non-existent file as the racy
> search method I had there, perhaps a bit better, it's certainly
> more straight forward.
>
>>
>> In practice there are always details that make things more
>> complicated.
>>
>> I was actually wondering if the approach should be to have an seqlock
>> around an individual directories rbtree. I think that would give a
>> lot
>> of potential for rcu style optimization during lookups.
>
> Yeah, it's tempting, but another constraint I had is to not increase
> the size of the kernfs_node struct (Greg and Tejun) and there's a
> hole in the node union variant kernfs_elem_dir at least big enough
> for sizeof(pointer) so I can put the revision there. And, given the
> simplification in revalidate, as well as that extra code being pretty
> straight forward itself, it's not too bad from the minimal change
> POV.
>
> So I'd like to go with using a revision for now.
No objection from me.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-05 20:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-28 6:33 [REPOST PATCH v4 0/5] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency improvement Ian Kent
2021-05-28 6:33 ` [REPOST PATCH v4 1/5] kernfs: move revalidate to be near lookup Ian Kent
2021-06-03 14:50 ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-06-04 2:29 ` Ian Kent
2021-05-28 6:34 ` [REPOST PATCH v4 2/5] kernfs: use VFS negative dentry caching Ian Kent
2021-06-01 12:41 ` Miklos Szeredi
2021-06-02 3:44 ` Ian Kent
2021-06-02 8:58 ` Miklos Szeredi
2021-06-02 10:57 ` Ian Kent
2021-06-03 2:15 ` Ian Kent
2021-06-03 23:57 ` Ian Kent
2021-06-04 1:07 ` Ian Kent
2021-06-03 17:26 ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-06-03 18:06 ` Miklos Szeredi
2021-06-03 22:02 ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-06-04 3:14 ` Ian Kent
2021-06-04 14:28 ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-06-05 3:19 ` Ian Kent
2021-06-05 20:52 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2021-05-28 6:34 ` [REPOST PATCH v4 3/5] kernfs: switch kernfs to use an rwsem Ian Kent
2021-06-01 13:11 ` Miklos Szeredi
2021-06-03 16:59 ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-05-28 6:34 ` [REPOST PATCH v4 4/5] kernfs: use i_lock to protect concurrent inode updates Ian Kent
2021-05-31 14:53 ` [kernfs] 9a658329cd: stress-ng.get.ops_per_sec 191.4% improvement kernel test robot
2021-06-01 13:18 ` [REPOST PATCH v4 4/5] kernfs: use i_lock to protect concurrent inode updates Miklos Szeredi
2021-06-02 5:41 ` Ian Kent
2021-05-28 6:34 ` [REPOST PATCH v4 5/5] kernfs: add kernfs_need_inode_refresh() Ian Kent
2021-05-28 8:56 ` [REPOST PATCH v4 0/5] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency improvement Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-05-28 11:56 ` Fox Chen
2021-05-30 4:44 ` Fox Chen
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=871r9gkpad.fsf@disp2133 \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=brice.goglin@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=foxhlchen@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=raven@themaw.net \
--cc=ricklind@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).