On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 08:31:20PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> When many threads are trying to add or delete inode to or from
> a superblock's s_inodes list, spinlock contention on the list can
> become a performance bottleneck.
>
> This patch changes the s_inodes field to become a per-cpu list with
> per-cpu spinlocks.
>
> With an exit microbenchmark that creates a large number of threads,
> attachs many inodes to them and then exits. The runtimes of that
> microbenchmark with 1000 threads before and after the patch on a
> 4-socket Intel E7-4820 v3 system (40 cores, 80 threads) were as
> follows:
>
> Kernel Elapsed Time System Time
> ------ ------------ -----------
> Vanilla 4.5-rc4 65.29s 82m14s
> Patched 4.5-rc4 22.81s 23m03s
Pretty good :)
My fsmark tests usually show up a fair bit of contention - moving
250k inodes through the cache every second over 16p does generate a
bit of load on the list. The patch makes the inode list add/del
operations disappear completely from the perf profiles, and there's
a marginal decrease in runtime (~4m40s vs 4m30s). I think the global
lock is right on the edge of breakdown under this load, though, so
if I was testing on a larger system I think the difference would be
much bigger.
I'll run some more testing on it, see if anything breaks.
A few comments on the code follow.
> @@ -1866,8 +1866,8 @@ void iterate_bdevs(void (*func)(struct block_device *, void *), void *arg)
> {
> struct inode *inode, *old_inode = NULL;
>
> - spin_lock(&blockdev_superblock->s_inode_list_lock);
> - list_for_each_entry(inode, &blockdev_superblock->s_inodes, i_sb_list) {
> + for_all_percpu_list_entries_simple(inode, percpu_lock,
> + blockdev_superblock->s_inodes_cpu, i_sb_list) {
This is kind what I meant about names getting way too long. How
about something like:
#define walk_sb_inodes(inode, sb, pcpu_lock) \
for_all_percpu_list_entries_simple(inode, pcpu_lock, \
sb->s_inodes_list, i_sb_list)
#define walk_sb_inodes_end(pcpu_lock) end_all_percpu_list_entries(pcpu_lock)
for brevity?
> @@ -189,7 +190,7 @@ void fsnotify_unmount_inodes(struct super_block *sb)
> spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
>
> /* In case the dropping of a reference would nuke next_i. */
> - while (&next_i->i_sb_list != &sb->s_inodes) {
> + while (&next_i->i_sb_list.list != percpu_head) {
> spin_lock(&next_i->i_lock);
> if (!(next_i->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE)) &&
> atomic_read(&next_i->i_count)) {
> @@ -199,16 +200,16 @@ void fsnotify_unmount_inodes(struct super_block *sb)
> break;
> }
> spin_unlock(&next_i->i_lock);
> - next_i = list_next_entry(next_i, i_sb_list);
> + next_i = list_next_entry(next_i, i_sb_list.list);
pcpu_list_next_entry(next_i, i_sb_list)?
> @@ -1397,9 +1398,8 @@ struct super_block {
> */
> int s_stack_depth;
>
> - /* s_inode_list_lock protects s_inodes */
> - spinlock_t s_inode_list_lock ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> - struct list_head s_inodes; /* all inodes */
> + /* The percpu locks protect s_inodes_cpu */
> + PERCPU_LIST_HEAD(s_inodes_cpu); /* all inodes */
There is no need to encode the type of list into the name.
i.e. drop the "_cpu" suffix - we can see it's a percpu list from the
declaration.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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
