Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] vfs: Use per-cpu list for superblock's inode list
From: Jan Kara
Date: Wed Feb 24 2016 - 03:58:42 EST
On Wed 24-02-16 09:36:30, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue 23-02-16 14:04:32, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > When many threads are trying to add or delete inode to or from
> > > a superblock's s_inodes list, spinlock contention on the list can
> > > become a performance bottleneck.
> > >
> > > This patch changes the s_inodes field to become a per-cpu list with
> > > per-cpu spinlocks. As a result, the following superblock inode list
> > > (sb->s_inodes) iteration functions in vfs are also being modified:
> > >
> > > 1. iterate_bdevs()
> > > 2. drop_pagecache_sb()
> > > 3. wait_sb_inodes()
> > > 4. evict_inodes()
> > > 5. invalidate_inodes()
> > > 6. fsnotify_unmount_inodes()
> > > 7. add_dquot_ref()
> > > 8. remove_dquot_ref()
> > >
> > > With an exit microbenchmark that creates a large number of threads,
> > > attachs many inodes to them and then exits. The runtimes of that
> > > microbenchmark with 1000 threads before and after the patch on a
> > > 4-socket Intel E7-4820 v3 system (40 cores, 80 threads) were as
> > > follows:
> > >
> > > Kernel Elapsed Time System Time
> > > ------ ------------ -----------
> > > Vanilla 4.5-rc4 65.29s 82m14s
> > > Patched 4.5-rc4 22.81s 23m03s
> > >
> > > Before the patch, spinlock contention at the inode_sb_list_add()
> > > function at the startup phase and the inode_sb_list_del() function at
> > > the exit phase were about 79% and 93% of total CPU time respectively
> > > (as measured by perf). After the patch, the percpu_list_add()
> > > function consumed only about 0.04% of CPU time at startup phase. The
> > > percpu_list_del() function consumed about 0.4% of CPU time at exit
> > > phase. There were still some spinlock contention, but they happened
> > > elsewhere.
> > While looking through this patch, I have noticed that the
> > list_for_each_entry_safe() iterations in evict_inodes() and
> > invalidate_inodes() are actually unnecessary. So if you first apply the
> > attached patch, you don't have to implement safe iteration variants at all.
> > As a second comment, I'd note that this patch grows struct inode by 1 pointer.
> > It is probably acceptable for large machines given the speedup but it should be
> > noted in the changelog. Furthermore for UP or even small SMP systems this is
> > IMHO undesired bloat since the speedup won't be noticeable.
> > So for these small systems it would be good if per-cpu list magic would just
> > fall back to single linked list with a spinlock. Do you think that is reasonably
> > doable?
> Even many 'small' systems tend to be SMP these days.
Yes, I know. But my tablet with 4 ARM cores is unlikely to benefit from
this change either. It will just have to pay the memory cost. And frankly I
don't care that much myself but if there is some reasonably easy way to
avoid the cost, it would be welcome.
> If you do this then please keep it a separate add-on patch, so that the
> 'UP cost' becomes apparent. Uniprocessor #ifdeffery is really painful in
> places and we might be better off with a single extra pointer.
> Forthermore UP kernels are tested a lot less stringently than SMP
> kernels. It's just 4 bytes for a truly small 32-bit system.
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR