On Fri 17-02-23 17:44:17, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> Currently, the kernel uses i_prealloc_list to hold all the inode
> preallocations. This is known to cause degradation in performance in
> workloads which perform large number of sparse writes on a single file.
> This is mainly because functions like ext4_mb_normalize_request() and
> ext4_mb_use_preallocated() iterate over this complete list, resulting in
> slowdowns when large number of PAs are present.
>
> Patch 27bc446e2 partially fixed this by enforcing a limit of 512 for
> the inode preallocation list and adding logic to continually trim the
> list if it grows above the threshold, however our testing revealed that
> a hardcoded value is not suitable for all kinds of workloads.
>
> To optimize this, add an rbtree to the inode and hold the inode
> preallocations in this rbtree. This will make iterating over inode PAs
> faster and scale much better than a linked list. Additionally, we also
> had to remove the LRU logic that was added during trimming of the list
> (in ext4_mb_release_context()) as it will add extra overhead in rbtree.
> The discards now happen in the lowest-logical-offset-first order.
>
> ** Locking notes **
>
> With the introduction of rbtree to maintain inode PAs, we can't use RCU
> to walk the tree for searching since it can result in partial traversals
> which might miss some nodes(or entire subtrees) while discards happen
> in parallel (which happens under a lock). Hence this patch converts the
> ei->i_prealloc_lock spin_lock to rw_lock.
>
> Almost all the codepaths that read/modify the PA rbtrees are protected
> by the higher level inode->i_data_sem (except
> ext4_mb_discard_group_preallocations() and ext4_clear_inode()) IIUC, the
> only place we need lock protection is when one thread is reading
> "searching" the PA rbtree (earlier protected under rcu_read_lock()) and
> another is "deleting" the PAs in ext4_mb_discard_group_preallocations()
> function (which iterates all the PAs using the grp->bb_prealloc_list and
> deletes PAs from the tree without taking any inode lock (i_data_sem)).
>
> So, this patch converts all rcu_read_lock/unlock() paths for inode list
> PA to use read_lock() and all places where we were using
> ei->i_prealloc_lock spinlock will now be using write_lock().
>
> Note that this makes the fast path (searching of the right PA e.g.
> ext4_mb_use_preallocated() or ext4_mb_normalize_request()), now use
> read_lock() instead of rcu_read_lock/unlock(). Ths also will now block
> due to slow discard path (ext4_mb_discard_group_preallocations()) which
> uses write_lock().
>
> But this is not as bad as it looks. This is because -
>
> 1. The slow path only occurs when the normal allocation failed and we
> can say that we are low on disk space. One can argue this scenario
> won't be much frequent.
>
> 2. ext4_mb_discard_group_preallocations(), locks and unlocks the rwlock
> for deleting every individual PA. This gives enough opportunity for
> the fast path to acquire the read_lock for searching the PA inode
> list.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Looks good to me. Feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Just a few style nits below...
> @@ -3992,80 +4010,162 @@ ext4_mb_pa_assert_overlap(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
> struct ext4_inode_info *ei = EXT4_I(ac->ac_inode);
> struct ext4_prealloc_space *tmp_pa;
> ext4_lblk_t tmp_pa_start, tmp_pa_end;
> + struct rb_node *iter;
>
> - rcu_read_lock();
> - list_for_each_entry_rcu(tmp_pa, &ei->i_prealloc_list, pa_node.inode_list) {
> - spin_lock(&tmp_pa->pa_lock);
> - if (tmp_pa->pa_deleted == 0) {
> - tmp_pa_start = tmp_pa->pa_lstart;
> - tmp_pa_end = tmp_pa->pa_lstart + EXT4_C2B(sbi, tmp_pa->pa_len);
> + read_lock(&ei->i_prealloc_lock);
> + for (iter = ei->i_prealloc_node.rb_node; iter;
> + iter = ext4_mb_pa_rb_next_iter(start, tmp_pa_start, iter)) {
> + tmp_pa = rb_entry(iter, struct ext4_prealloc_space,
> + pa_node.inode_node);
> + tmp_pa_start = tmp_pa->pa_lstart;
> + tmp_pa_end = tmp_pa->pa_lstart + EXT4_C2B(sbi, tmp_pa->pa_len);
>
> + spin_lock(&tmp_pa->pa_lock);
> + if (tmp_pa->pa_deleted == 0)
> BUG_ON(!(start >= tmp_pa_end || end <= tmp_pa_start));
> - }
> spin_unlock(&tmp_pa->pa_lock);
> }
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> + read_unlock(&ei->i_prealloc_lock);
> }
> -
Please keep the empty line here.
> @@ -4402,6 +4502,7 @@ ext4_mb_use_preallocated(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac)
> struct ext4_locality_group *lg;
> struct ext4_prealloc_space *tmp_pa, *cpa = NULL;
> ext4_lblk_t tmp_pa_start, tmp_pa_end;
> + struct rb_node *iter;
> ext4_fsblk_t goal_block;
>
> /* only data can be preallocated */
> @@ -4409,14 +4510,17 @@ ext4_mb_use_preallocated(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac)
> return false;
>
> /* first, try per-file preallocation */
> - rcu_read_lock();
> - list_for_each_entry_rcu(tmp_pa, &ei->i_prealloc_list, pa_node.inode_list) {
> + read_lock(&ei->i_prealloc_lock);
> + for (iter = ei->i_prealloc_node.rb_node; iter;
> + iter = ext4_mb_pa_rb_next_iter(ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical, tmp_pa_start, iter)) {
> + tmp_pa = rb_entry(iter, struct ext4_prealloc_space, pa_node.inode_node);
Perhaps wrap above two lines to fit in 80 characters?
> @@ -5043,17 +5177,18 @@ void ext4_discard_preallocations(struct inode *inode, unsigned int needed)
>
> repeat:
> /* first, collect all pa's in the inode */
> - spin_lock(&ei->i_prealloc_lock);
> - while (!list_empty(&ei->i_prealloc_list) && needed) {
> - pa = list_entry(ei->i_prealloc_list.prev,
> - struct ext4_prealloc_space, pa_node.inode_list);
> + write_lock(&ei->i_prealloc_lock);
> + for (iter = rb_first(&ei->i_prealloc_node); iter && needed; iter = rb_next(iter)) {
Wrap this line as well?
> + pa = rb_entry(iter, struct ext4_prealloc_space,
> + pa_node.inode_node);
> BUG_ON(pa->pa_node_lock.inode_lock != &ei->i_prealloc_lock);
> +
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
