On Wed 30-03-22 15:38:38, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 2022, at 11:03 AM, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2022-03-30 at 12:34 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> during our performance testing we have noticed that commit
> >> b6669305d35a
> >> ("nfsd: Reduce the number of calls to nfsd_file_gc()") has introduced
> >> a
> >> performance regression when a client does random buffered writes. The
> >> workload on NFS client is fio running 4 processed doing random
> >> buffered writes to 4
> >> different files and the files are large enough to hit dirty limits
> >> and
> >> force writeback from the client. In particular the invocation is
> >> like:
> >>
> >> fio --direct=0 --ioengine=sync --thread --directory=/mnt/mnt1 --
> >> invalidate=1 --group_reporting=1 --runtime=300 --fallocate=posix --
> >> ramp_time=10 --name=RandomReads-128000-4k-4 --new_group --
> >> rw=randwrite --size=4000m --numjobs=4 --bs=4k --
> >> filename_format=FioWorkloads.\$jobnum --end_fsync=1
> >>
> >> The reason why commit b6669305d35a regresses performance is the
> >> filemap_flush() call it adds into nfsd_file_put(). Before this commit
> >> writeback on the server happened from nfsd_commit() code resulting in
> >> rather long semisequential streams of 4k writes. After commit
> >> b6669305d35a
> >> all the writeback happens from filemap_flush() calls resulting in
> >> much
> >> longer average seek distance (IO from different files is more
> >> interleaved)
> >> and about 16-20% regression in the achieved writeback throughput when
> >> the
> >> backing store is rotational storage.
> >>
> >> I think the filemap_flush() from nfsd_file_put() is indeed rather
> >> aggressive and I think we'd be better off to just leave writeback to
> >> either
> >> nfsd_commit() or standard dirty page cleaning happening on the
> >> system. I
> >> assume the rationale for the filemap_flush() call was to make it more
> >> likely the file can be evicted during the garbage collection run? Was
> >> there
> >> any particular problem leading to addition of this call or was it
> >> just "it
> >> seemed like a good idea" thing?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance for ideas.
> >>
> >> Honza
> >
> > It was mainly introduced to reduce the amount of work that
> > nfsd_file_free() needs to do. In particular when re-exporting NFS, the
> > call to filp_close() can be expensive because it synchronously flushes
> > out dirty pages. That again means that some of the calls to
> > nfsd_file_dispose_list() can end up being very expensive (particularly
> > the ones run by the garbage collector itself).
>
> The "no regressions" rule suggests that some kind of action needs
> to be taken. I don't have a sense of whether Jan's workload or NFS
> re-export is the more common use case, however.
>
> I can see that filp_close() on a file on an NFS mount could be
> costly if that file has dirty pages, due to the NFS client's
> "flush on close" semantic.
>
> Trond, are there alternatives to flushing in the nfsd_file_put()
> path? I'm willing to entertain bug fix patches rather than a
> mechanical revert of b6669305d35a.
Yeah, I don't think we need to rush fixing this with a revert. Also because
just removing the filemap_flush() from nfsd_file_put() would keep other
benefits of that commit while fixing the regression AFAIU. But I think
making flushing less aggressive is desirable because as I wrote in my other
reply, currently it is preventing pagecache from accumulating enough dirty
data for a good IO pattern.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
