Re: [PATCH 02/28] xfs: Throttle commits on delayed background CIL push

[Dave Chinner]

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 08:04:26AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 10:45:52AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > In certain situations the background CIL push can be indefinitely
> > delayed. While we have workarounds from the obvious cases now, it
> > doesn't solve the underlying issue. This issue is that there is no
> > upper limit on the CIL where we will either force or wait for
> > a background push to start, hence allowing the CIL to grow without
> > bound until it consumes all log space.
> > 
> > To fix this, add a new wait queue to the CIL which allows background
> > pushes to wait for the CIL context to be switched out. This happens
> > when the push starts, so it will allow us to block incoming
> > transaction commit completion until the push has started. This will
> > only affect processes that are running modifications, and only when
> > the CIL threshold has been significantly overrun.
> > 
> > This has no apparent impact on performance, and doesn't even trigger
> > until over 45 million inodes had been created in a 16-way fsmark
> > test on a 2GB log. That was limiting at 64MB of log space used, so
> > the active CIL size is only about 3% of the total log in that case.
> > The concurrent removal of those files did not trigger the background
> > sleep at all.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> 
> I don't recall posting an R-b tag for this one...

Argh, sorry. I must have screwed up transcribing them from the
mailing list.

> That said, I think my only outstanding feedback (side discussion aside)
> was the code factoring in xlog_cil_push_background().

I'll go back and look at that, 'cause clearly I was looking at the
wrong patch when I screwed up the rvb tag...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx