Re: dm bufio: Reduce dm_bufio_lock contention

[Michal Hocko]

On Thu 14-06-18 14:34:06, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > On Thu 14-06-18 15:18:58, jing xia wrote:
> > [...]
> > > PID: 22920  TASK: ffffffc0120f1a00  CPU: 1   COMMAND: "kworker/u8:2"
> > >  #0 [ffffffc0282af3d0] __switch_to at ffffff8008085e48
> > >  #1 [ffffffc0282af3f0] __schedule at ffffff8008850cc8
> > >  #2 [ffffffc0282af450] schedule at ffffff8008850f4c
> > >  #3 [ffffffc0282af470] schedule_timeout at ffffff8008853a0c
> > >  #4 [ffffffc0282af520] schedule_timeout_uninterruptible at ffffff8008853aa8
> > >  #5 [ffffffc0282af530] wait_iff_congested at ffffff8008181b40
> > 
> > This trace doesn't provide the full picture unfortunately. Waiting in
> > the direct reclaim means that the underlying bdi is congested. The real
> > question is why it doesn't flush IO in time.
> 
> I pointed this out two years ago and you just refused to fix it:
> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1608.1/04507.html

Let me be evil again and let me quote the old discussion:
: > I agree that mempool_alloc should _primarily_ sleep on their own
: > throttling mechanism. I am not questioning that. I am just saying that
: > the page allocator has its own throttling which it relies on and that
: > cannot be just ignored because that might have other undesirable side
: > effects. So if the right approach is really to never throttle certain
: > requests then we have to bail out from a congested nodes/zones as soon
: > as the congestion is detected.
: >
: > Now, I would like to see that something like that is _really_ necessary.
:
: Currently, it is not a problem - device mapper reports the device as
: congested only if the underlying physical disks are congested.
:
: But once we change it so that device mapper reports congested state on its
: own (when it has too many bios in progress), this starts being a problem.

So has this changed since then? If yes then we can think of a proper
solution but that would require to actually describe why we see the
congestion, why it does help to wait on the caller rather than the
allocator etc...

Throwing statements like ...

> I'm sure you'll come up with another creative excuse why GFP_NORETRY 
> allocations need incur deliberate 100ms delays in block device drivers.

... is not really productive. I've tried to explain why I am not _sure_ what
possible side effects such a change might have and your hand waving
didn't really convince me. MD is not the only user of the page
allocator...

E.g. why has 41c73a49df31 ("dm bufio: drop the lock when doing GFP_NOIO
allocation") even added GFP_NOIO request in the first place when you
keep retrying and sleep yourself? The changelog only describes what but
doesn't explain why. Or did I misread the code and this is not the
allocation which is stalling due to congestion?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs