Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] nfsd/sunrpc: add support for a workqueue-based nfsd
From: Jeff Layton
Date: Wed Dec 03 2014 - 15:21:55 EST
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 14:59:43 -0500
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 14:08:01 -0500
> > Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Which workqueue are you using? Since the receive code is non-blocking,
> >> I'd expect you might be able to use rpciod, for the initial socket
> >> reads, but you wouldn't want to use that for the actual knfsd
> >> processing.
> > I'm using the same (nfsd) workqueue for everything. The workqueue
> > isn't really the bottleneck though, it's the work_struct.
> > Basically, the problem is that the work_struct in the svc_xprt was
> > remaining busy for far too long. So, even though the XPT_BUSY bit had
> > cleared, the work wouldn't get picked up again until the previous
> > workqueue job had returned.
> > With the change I made today, I just added a new work_struct to
> > svc_rqst and queue that to the same workqueue to do svc_process as soon
> > as the receive is done. That means though that each RPC ends up waiting
> > in the queue twice (once to do the receive and once to process the
> > RPC), and I think that's probably the reason for the performance delta.
> Why would the queuing latency still be significant now?
That, I'm not clear on yet and that may not be why this is slower. But,
I was seeing slightly faster performance with reads before I made
today's changes. If changing how these jobs get queued doesn't help the
performance, then I'll have to look elsewhere...
> > What I think I'm going to do on the next pass is have the job that
> > enqueues the xprt instead try to find an svc_rqst. If it finds it,
> > then it can go ahead and queue the work struct in it to do the
> > receive and processing in a single go.
> > If it can't find one, it'll queue the xprt's work to allocate one
> > and then queue that to do all of the work as before. That will
> > likely penalize the case where there isn't an available svc_rqst,
> > but in the common case that there is one it should go quickly.
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/