On 04/02/2014 11:41 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> Thanks for the patches and measurements! So I agree we contend a lot on
> orphan list changes in ext4. But what you do seems to be unnecessarily
> complicated and somewhat hiding the real substance of the patch. If I
> understand your patch correctly, all it does is that it does the
> preliminary work (ext4_reserve_inode_write(),
> ext4_journal_get_write_access()) without the global orphan mutex (under the
> hashed mutex).
>
> However orphan operations on a single inode are already serialized by
> i_mutex so there's no need to introduce any new hashed lock. Just add
> assertion mutex_locked(&inode->i_mutex) to ext4_orphan_add() and
> ext4_orphan_del() - you might need to lock i_mutex around the code in
> fs/ext4/migrate.c and in ext4_tmpfile() but that should be fine.
>
I've done some data collection. Looks like there are more callers to ext4_orphan_add() and ext4_orphan_del() without holding the i_mutex as expected.
This is what I've found on one of my 8 core machine.
--------------------------------------------
| ext4_orphan_add | ext4_orphan_del |
--------------------------------------------
| Total | without | Total | without |
| | holding | | holding |
| | i_mutex | | i_mutex |
-------------------------------------------------------------
| First comes up | | | | |
| to multi-user | 2446 | 363 | 2081 | 1659 |
-------------------------------------------------------------
| After alltests | 23812582 | 173599 | 23853863 | 2467999 |
-------------------------------------------------------------
| After disk | 30860981 | 818255 | 30261069 | 8881905 |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Though some orphan calls already held the i_mutex, using the i_mutex to serialize orphan operations within a single inode seems to negate all of the performance improvement from the original patch. There seems to be no performance differences form the current implementation.
> Also I'm somewhat failing to see what the spinlock s_orphan_lock brings us.
> I'd guess that the mutex could still protect also the in-memory list and we
> have to grab it in all the relevant cases anyway (in some rare cases we
> could avoid taking the mutex and spinlock would be enough but these
> shouldn't be performance relevant). Please correct me if I'm wrong here, I
> didn't look at the code for that long.
>
The same data also shows 0 call from the error part. Re-running the benchmark, replacing the spinlock with the same disk oprhan mutex, does not seem to have any performance impact from that of the original patch.
I'll resubmit the patch by just removing the in memory orphan list lock and keeping the mutex array for serializing orphan operation within a single inode.
Please let me know if you have any additional comment or concern.
Thanks,
Mak.
> Finally (and I somewhat miss this in your patch), I'd think we might need
> to use list_empty_careful() when checking inode's orphan list without
> global orphan list lock.
>
> Honza
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
