> On May 11, 2022, at 10:23 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 02:16:19PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On May 11, 2022, at 8:38 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:03:13PM +0200, Wolfgang Walter wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> starting with 5.4.188 wie see a massive performance regression on our
>>>> nfs-server. It basically is serving requests very very slowly with cpu
>>>> utilization of 100% (with 5.4.187 and earlier it is 10%) so that it is
>>>> unusable as a fileserver.
>>>>
>>>> The culprit are commits (or one of it):
>>>>
>>>> c32f1041382a88b17da5736886da4a492353a1bb "nfsd: cleanup
>>>> nfsd_file_lru_dispose()"
>>>> 628adfa21815f74c04724abc85847f24b5dd1645 "nfsd: Containerise filecache
>>>> laundrette"
>>>>
>>>> (upstream 36ebbdb96b694dd9c6b25ad98f2bbd263d022b63 and
>>>> 9542e6a643fc69d528dfb3303f145719c61d3050)
>>>>
>>>> If I revert them in v5.4.192 the kernel works as before and performance is
>>>> ok again.
>>>>
>>>> I did not try to revert them one by one as any disruption of our nfs-server
>>>> is a severe problem for us and I'm not sure if they are related.
>>>>
>>>> 5.10 and 5.15 both always performed very badly on our nfs-server in a
>>>> similar way so we were stuck with 5.4.
>>>>
>>>> I now think this is because of 36ebbdb96b694dd9c6b25ad98f2bbd263d022b63
>>>> and/or 9542e6a643fc69d528dfb3303f145719c61d3050 though I didn't tried to
>>>> revert them in 5.15 yet.
>>>
>>> Odds are 5.18-rc6 is also a problem?
>>
>> We believe that
>>
>> 6b8a94332ee4 ("nfsd: Fix a write performance regression")
>>
>> addresses the performance regression. It was merged into 5.18-rc.
>
> And into 5.17.4 if someone wants to try that release.
I don't have a lot of time to backport this one myself, so
I welcome anyone who wants to apply that commit to their
favorite LTS kernel and test it for us.
>>> If so, I'll just wait for the fix to get into Linus's tree as this does
>>> not seem to be a stable-tree-only issue.
>>
>> Unfortunately I've received a recent report that the fix introduces
>> a "sleep while spinlock is held" for NFSv4.0 in rare cases.
>
> Ick, not good, any potential fixes for that?
Not yet. I was at LSF last week, so I've just started digging
into this one. I've confirmed that the report is a real bug,
but we still don't know how hard it is to hit it with real
workloads.
--
Chuck Lever
