On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:18:18 -0500 Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Feb 16, 2013, at 8:39 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 05:20:58PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > >> An excellent question, and not an easy one to answer. Clearly 1024 > >> entries was not enough. We now cap the size as a function of the > >> available low memory, which I think is a reasonable way to keep it from > >> ballooning so large that the box falls over. We also have a shrinker > >> and periodic cache cleaner to prune off entries that have expired. > >> > >> Of course one thing I haven't really considered enough is the > >> performance implications of walking the potentially much longer hash > >> chains here. > >> > >> If that is a problem, then one way to counter that without moving to a > >> different structure altogether might be to alter the hash function > >> based on the max size of the cache. IOW, grow the number of hash buckets > >> as the max cache size grows? > > The trouble with a hash table is that once you've allocated it, it's a heavy lift to increase the table size. That sort of logic adds complexity and additional locking, and is often difficult to test. > I wasn't suggesting that we resize/rebalance the table on the fly. We determine the max allowable number of cache entries when the server starts. We could also determine the number of buckets at the same time, and alter the hashing function to take that number into account. Of course, more buckets may not help if the hash function just sucks. > > Another reason to organize the cache per client address? > > > In theory, an active single client could evict all entries for other clients, but do we know this happens in practice? > I'm pretty sure that's what's been happening to our QA group. They have some shared NFS servers set up in the test lab for client testing. When things get busy, they the DRC just plain doesn't appear to work. It's hard to know for sure though since the problem only crops up very rarely. My hope is that the massive increase in the size of the DRC should prevent that from occurring now. > > With a per-client maximum number of entries, sizing the hash tables > > should be easier. > > > When a server has only one client, should that client be allowed to maximize the use of a server's resources (eg, use all of the DRC resource the server has available)? How about when a server has one active client and multiple quiescent clients? > Again, we have two "problems" to solve, and we need to take care not to conflate them too much. 1) how do we best organize the cache for efficient lookups? 2) what cache eviction policy should we use? Organizing the cache based on client address might help both of those, but we'll need to determine whether it's worth the extra complexity. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
