> On Jul 8, 2022, at 3:43 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2022-07-08 at 14:25 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>> The checks in nfsd_file_acquire() and nfsd_file_put() that directly
>> invoke filecache garbage collection are intended to keep cache
>> occupancy between a low- and high-watermark. The reason to limit the
>> capacity of the filecache is to keep filecache lookups reasonably
>> fast.
>>
>> However, invoking garbage collection at those points has some
>> undesirable negative impacts. Files that are held open by NFSv4
>> clients often push the occupancy of the filecache over these
>> watermarks. At that point:
>>
>> - Every call to nfsd_file_acquire() and nfsd_file_put() results in
>> an LRU walk. This has the same effect on lookup latency as long
>> chains in the hash table.
>> - Garbage collection will then run on every nfsd thread, causing a
>> lot of unnecessary lock contention.
>> - Limiting cache capacity pushes out files used only by NFSv3
>> clients, which are the type of files the filecache is supposed to
>> help.
>>
>> To address those negative impacts, remove the direct calls to the
>> garbage collector. Subsequent patches will address maintaining
>> lookup efficiency as cache capacity increases.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Wang Yugui <wangyugui@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Suggested-by: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/nfsd/filecache.c | 10 +---------
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/filecache.c b/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
>> index bd6ba63f69ae..faa8588663d6 100644
>> --- a/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
>> @@ -29,8 +29,6 @@
>> #define NFSD_LAUNDRETTE_DELAY (2 * HZ)
>>
>> #define NFSD_FILE_SHUTDOWN (1)
>> -#define NFSD_FILE_LRU_THRESHOLD (4096UL)
>> -#define NFSD_FILE_LRU_LIMIT (NFSD_FILE_LRU_THRESHOLD << 2)
>>
>> /* We only care about NFSD_MAY_READ/WRITE for this cache */
>> #define NFSD_FILE_MAY_MASK (NFSD_MAY_READ|NFSD_MAY_WRITE)
>> @@ -66,8 +64,6 @@ static struct fsnotify_group *nfsd_file_fsnotify_group;
>> static atomic_long_t nfsd_filecache_count;
>> static struct delayed_work nfsd_filecache_laundrette;
>>
>> -static void nfsd_file_gc(void);
>> -
>> static void
>> nfsd_file_schedule_laundrette(void)
>> {
>> @@ -350,9 +346,6 @@ nfsd_file_put(struct nfsd_file *nf)
>> nfsd_file_schedule_laundrette();
>> } else
>> nfsd_file_put_noref(nf);
>> -
>> - if (atomic_long_read(&nfsd_filecache_count) >= NFSD_FILE_LRU_LIMIT)
>> - nfsd_file_gc();
>
> This may be addressed in later patches, but instead of just removing
> these, would it be better to instead call
> nfsd_file_schedule_laundrette() ?
nfsd_file_put() already kicks the laundrette.
I can't see a reason to call the laundrette again; once there are items
on the LRU it seems to run every 2 seconds anyway.
>> }
>>
>> struct nfsd_file *
>> @@ -1075,8 +1068,7 @@ nfsd_do_file_acquire(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct svc_fh *fhp,
>> nfsd_file_hashtbl[hashval].nfb_maxcount = max(nfsd_file_hashtbl[hashval].nfb_maxcount,
>> nfsd_file_hashtbl[hashval].nfb_count);
>> spin_unlock(&nfsd_file_hashtbl[hashval].nfb_lock);
>> - if (atomic_long_inc_return(&nfsd_filecache_count) >= NFSD_FILE_LRU_THRESHOLD)
>> - nfsd_file_gc();
>> + atomic_long_inc(&nfsd_filecache_count);
>>
>> nf->nf_mark = nfsd_file_mark_find_or_create(nf);
>> if (nf->nf_mark) {
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Chuck Lever
