On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 09:59 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > Steve, > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 10:25:47PM +0800, Steve Rago wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2009-12-19 at 20:20 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 04:17:57PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 21:03 -0500, Steve Rago wrote: > > > > > Eager Writeback for NFS Clients > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > > Prevent applications that write large sequential streams of data (like backup, for example) > > > > > from entering into a memory pressure state, which degrades performance by falling back to > > > > > synchronous operations (both synchronous writes and additional commits). > > > > > > What exactly is the "memory pressure state" condition? What's the > > > code to do the "synchronous writes and additional commits" and maybe > > > how they are triggered? > > > > Memory pressure occurs when most of the client pages have been dirtied > > by an application (think backup server writing multi-gigabyte files that > > exceed the size of main memory). The system works harder to be able to > > free dirty pages so that they can be reused. For a local file system, > > this means writing the pages to disk. For NFS, however, the writes > > leave the pages in an "unstable" state until the server responds to a > > commit request. Generally speaking, commit processing is far more > > expensive than write processing on the server; both are done with the > > inode locked, but since the commit takes so long, all writes are > > blocked, which stalls the pipeline. > > Let me try reiterate the problem with code, please correct me if I'm > wrong. > > 1) normal fs sets I_DIRTY_DATASYNC when extending i_size, however NFS > will set the flag for any pages written -- why this trick? To > guarantee the call of nfs_commit_inode()? Which unfortunately turns > almost every server side NFS write into sync writes.. Not really. The commit needs to be sent, but the writes are still asynchronous. It's just that the pages can't be recycled until they are on stable storage. > > writeback_single_inode: > do_writepages > nfs_writepages > nfs_writepage ----[short time later]---> nfs_writeback_release* > nfs_mark_request_commit > __mark_inode_dirty(I_DIRTY_DATASYNC); > > if (I_DIRTY_SYNC || I_DIRTY_DATASYNC) <---- so this will be true for most time > write_inode > nfs_write_inode > nfs_commit_inode > > > 2) NFS commit stops pipeline because it sleep&wait inside i_mutex, > which blocks all other NFSDs trying to write/writeback the inode. > > nfsd_sync: > take i_mutex > filemap_fdatawrite > filemap_fdatawait > drop i_mutex > > If filemap_fdatawait() can be moved out of i_mutex (or just remove > the lock), we solve the root problem: > > nfsd_sync: > [take i_mutex] > filemap_fdatawrite => can also be blocked, but less a problem > [drop i_mutex] > filemap_fdatawait > > Maybe it's a dumb question, but what's the purpose of i_mutex here? > For correctness or to prevent livelock? I can imagine some livelock > problem here (current implementation can easily wait for extra > pages), however not too hard to fix. Commits and writes on the same inode need to be serialized for consistency (write can change the data and metadata; commit [fsync] needs to provide guarantees that the written data are stable). The performance problem arises because NFS writes are fast (they generally just deposit data into the server's page cache), but commits can take a long time, especially if there is a lot of cached data to flush to stable storage. > > > The proposed patch essentially takes two actions in nfs_file_write() > - to start writeback when the per-file nr_dirty goes high > without committing > - to throttle dirtying when the per-file nr_writeback goes high > I guess this effectively prevents pdflush from kicking in with > its bad committing behavior > > In general it's reasonable to keep NFS per-file nr_dirty low, however > questionable to do per-file nr_writeback throttling. This does not > work well with the global limits - eg. when there are many dirty > files, the summed-up nr_writeback will still grow out of control. Not with the eager writeback patch. The nr_writeback for NFS is limited by the woutstanding tunable parameter multiplied by the number of active NFS files being written. > And it's more likely to impact user visible responsiveness than > a global limit. But my opinion can be biased -- me have a patch to > do global NFS nr_writeback limit ;) What affects user-visible responsiveness is avoiding long delays and avoiding delays that vary widely. Whether the limit is global or per-file is less important (but I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise). Steve > > Thanks, > Fengguang > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
