On 6/3/24 17:19, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 16:43, Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/3/24 08:17, Jingbo Xu wrote:
>>> Hi, Miklos,
>>>
>>> We spotted a performance bottleneck for FUSE writeback in which the
>>> writeback kworker has consumed nearly 100% CPU, among which 40% CPU is
>>> used for copy_page().
>>>
>>> fuse_writepages_fill
>>> alloc tmp_page
>>> copy_highpage
>>>
>>> This is because of FUSE writeback design (see commit 3be5a52b30aa
>>> ("fuse: support writable mmap")), which newly allocates a temp page for
>>> each dirty page to be written back, copy content of dirty page to temp
>>> page, and then write back the temp page instead. This special design is
>>> intentional to avoid potential deadlocked due to buggy or even malicious
>>> fuse user daemon.
>>
>> I also noticed that and I admin that I don't understand it yet. The commit says
>>
>> <quote>
>> The basic problem is that there can be no guarantee about the time in which
>> the userspace filesystem will complete a write. It may be buggy or even
>> malicious, and fail to complete WRITE requests. We don't want unrelated parts
>> of the system to grind to a halt in such cases.
>> </quote>
>>
>>
>> Timing - NFS/cifs/etc have the same issue? Even a local file system has no guarantees
>> how fast storage is?
>
> I don't have the details but it boils down to the fact that the
> allocation context provided by GFP_NOFS (PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS) cannot be
> used by the unprivileged userspace server (and even if it could,
> there's no guarantee, that it would).
>
> When this mechanism was introduced, the deadlock was a real
> possibility. I'm not sure that it can still happen, but proving that
> it cannot might be difficult.
Thanks Miklos!
I need to go through all of the GFP_NOFS allocation, but I wonder if we
could introduce cached allocations and fall back to the slow path if
that didn't work.
Thanks,
Bernd
