----- Original Message ----- > From: "Krishnan Parthasarathi" <kparthas@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Vijay Bellur" <vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Vijaikumar M" <vmallika@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gluster Devel" > <gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Raghavendra Gowdappa" <rgowdapp@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Nagaprasad Sathyanarayana" > <nsathyan@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2015 10:54:44 AM > Subject: Re: Huge memory consumption with quota-marker > > Yes, we could take synctask size as an argument for synctask_create. > The increase in synctask threads is not really a problem, it can't > grow more than 16 (SYNCENV_PROC_MAX). That is it cannot grow more than PROC_MAX in _single_ syncenv I suppose. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > On 07/02/2015 10:40 AM, Krishnan Parthasarathi wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > >> On Wednesday 01 July 2015 08:41 AM, Vijaikumar M wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> The new marker xlator uses syncop framework to update quota-size in the > > >>> background, it uses one synctask per write FOP. > > >>> If there are 100 parallel writes with all different inodes but on the > > >>> same directory '/dir', there will be ~100 txn waiting in queue to > > >>> acquire a lock on on its parent i.e '/dir'. > > >>> Each of this txn uses a syntack and each synctask allocates stack size > > >>> of 2M (default size), so total 0f 200M usage. This usage can increase > > >>> depending on the load. > > >>> > > >>> I am think of of using the stacksize for synctask to 256k, will this > > >>> mem > > >>> be sufficient as we perform very limited operations within a synctask > > >>> in > > >>> marker updation? > > >>> > > >> Seems like a good idea to me. Do we need a 256k stacksize or can we live > > >> with something even smaller? > > > It was 16K when synctask was introduced. This is a property of syncenv. > > > We > > > could > > > create a separate syncenv for marker transactions which has smaller > > > stacks. > > > env->stacksize (and SYNCTASK_DEFAULT_STACKSIZE) was increased to 2MB to > > > support > > > pump xlator based data migration for replace-brick. For the no. of stack > > > frames > > > a marker transaction could use at any given time, we could use much > > > lesser, > > > 16K say. > > > Does that make sense? > > Creating one more syncenv will lead to extra sync-threads, may be we can > > take stacksize as argument. > > > > Pranith > > > _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
