Re: [RFC PATCH] kernfs: release kernfs_mutex before the inode allocation

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 01:36:01PM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 08:49:46PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:43:17AM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > The kernfs implementation has big lock granularity(kernfs_rwsem) so
> > > every kernfs-based(e.g., sysfs, cgroup, dmabuf) fs are able to compete
> > > the lock. Thus, if one of userspace goes the sleep under holding
> > > the lock for a long time, rest of them should wait it. A example is
> > > the holder goes direct reclaim with the lock since it needs memory
> > > allocation. Let's fix it at common technique that release the lock
> > > and then allocate the memory. Fortunately, kernfs looks like have
> > > an refcount so I hope it's fine.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/kernfs/dir.c             | 14 +++++++++++---
> > >  fs/kernfs/inode.c           |  2 +-
> > >  fs/kernfs/kernfs-internal.h |  1 +
> > >  3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > What workload hits this lock to cause it to be noticable?
> 
> A app launching since it was dropping the frame since the
> latency was too long.

How does running a program interact with kernfs filesystems?  Which
one(s)?

> > There was a bunch of recent work in this area to make this much more
> > fine-grained, and the theoritical benchmarks that people created (adding
> > 10s of thousands of scsi disks at boot time) have gotten better.
> > 
> > But in that work, no one could find a real benchmark or use case that
> > anyone could even notice this type of thing.  What do you have that
> > shows this?
> 
> https://developer.android.com/studio/command-line/perfetto
> https://perfetto.dev/docs/data-sources/cpu-scheduling

That is links to a tool, not a test we can run ourselves.

Or how about the output of that tool?

> Android has perfetto tracing system and can show where processes
> were stuck. This case was the lock since holder was in direct reclaim
> path.

Reclaim of what?  What is the interaction here with kernfs?  Normally
this filesystem is not on any "fast paths" that I know of.

More specifics would be nice :)

thanks,

greg k-h