On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 04:05:14PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 08:33:41AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 04:11:34PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 01:55:10PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > > > I could extend the comment to explain why we don't use PAGE_SIZE... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good, though what I think would be better is to define a > > > > IWALK_DEFAULT_RECS or some such somewhere and put the calculation > > > > details with that. > > > > > > > > Though now that you point out the readahead thing, aren't we at risk of > > > > a similar problem for users who happen to pass a really large userspace > > > > buffer? Should we cap the kernel allocation/readahead window in all > > > > cases and not just the default case? > > > > > > Hmm, that's right, we don't want to let userspace arbitrarily determine > > > the size of the buffer, and I think the current implementation caps it > > > the readahaead at ... oh, PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(xfs_inogrp_t). > > > > > > Oh, right, and in the V1 patchset Dave said that we should constrain > > > readahead even further. > > > > Right, I should explain a bit further why, too - it's about > > performance. I've found that a user buffer size of ~1024 inodes is > > generally enough to max out performance of bulkstat. i.e. somewhere > > around 1000 inodes per syscall is enough to mostly amortise all of > > the cost of syscall, setup, readahead, etc vs the CPU overhead of > > copying all the inodes into the user buffer. > > > > Once the user buffer goes over a few thousand inodes, performance > > then starts to tail back off - we don't get any gains from trying to > > bulkstat tens of thousands of inodes at a time, especially under > > memory pressure because that can push us into readahead and buffer > > cache thrashing. > > <nod> I don't mind setting the max inobt record cache buffer size to a > smaller value (1024 bytes == 4096 inodes readahead?) so we can get a > little farther into future hardware scalability (or decreases in syscall > performance :P). > The 1k baseline presumably applies to the current code. Taking a closer look at the current code, we unconditionally allocate a 4 page record buffer and start to fill it. For every record we grab, we issue readahead on the underlying clusters. Hmm, that seems like generally what this patchset is doing aside from the more variable record buffer allocation. I'm fine with changing things like record buffer allocation, readahead semantics, etc. given Dave's practical analysis above, but TBH I don't think that should all be part of the same patch. IMO, this rework patch should maintain as close as possible to current behavior and a subsequent patches in the series can tweak record buffer size and whatnot to improve readahead logic. That makes this all easier to review, discuss and maintain in the event of regression. > I guess the question here is how to relate the number of inodes the user > asked for to how many inobt records we have to read to find that many > allocated inodes? Or in other words, what's the average ir_freecount > across all the inobt records? > The current code basically looks like it allocates an oversized buffer and hopes for the best with regard to readahead. If we took a similar approach in terms of overestimating the buffer size (assuming not all inode records are fully allocated), I suppose we could also track the number of cluster readaheads issued and govern the collect/drain sequences of the record buffer based on that..? But again, I think we should have this as a separate "xfs: make iwalk readahead smarter ..." patch that documents Dave's analysis above, perhaps includes some numbers, etc.. > Note that this is technically a decrease since the old code would > reserve 16K for this purpose... > Indeed. Brian > > > > > /* > > > > > * Note: We hardcode 4096 here (instead of, say, PAGE_SIZE) because we want to > > > > > * constrain the amount of inode readahead to 16k inodes regardless of CPU: > > > > > * > > > > > * 4096 bytes / 16 bytes per inobt record = 256 inobt records > > > > > * 256 inobt records * 64 inodes per record = 16384 inodes > > > > > * 16384 inodes * 512 bytes per inode(?) = 8MB of inode readahead > > > > > */ > > > > Hence I suspect that even this is overkill - it makes no sense to > > have a huge readahead window when there has been no measurable > > performance benefit to doing large inode count bulkstat syscalls. > > > > And, FWIW, readahead probably should also be capped at what the user > > buffer can hold - no point in reading 16k inodes when the output > > buffer can only fit 1000 inodes... > > It already is -- the icount parameter from userspace is (eventually) fed > to xfs_iwalk-set_prefetch. > > --D > > > Cheers, > > > > Dave. > > -- > > Dave Chinner > > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
