On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 09:36:27AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:05:44AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 07:28:09PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > With the m_active_trans atomic bottleneck out of the way, the CIL
> > > xc_cil_lock is the next bottleneck that causes cacheline contention.
> > > This protects several things, the first of which is the CIL context
> > > reservation ticket and space usage counters.
> > >
> > > We can lift them out of the xc_cil_lock by converting them to
> > > percpu counters. THis involves two things, the first of which is
> > > lifting calculations and samples that don't actually need protecting
> > > from races outside the xc_cil lock.
> > >
> > > The second is converting the counters to percpu counters and lifting
> > > them outside the lock. This requires a couple of tricky things to
> > > minimise initial state races and to ensure we take into account
> > > split reservations. We do this by erring on the "take the
> > > reservation just in case" side, which largely lost in the noise of
> > > many frequent large transactions.
> > >
> > > We use a trick with percpu_counter_add_batch() to ensure the global
> > > sum is updated immediately on first reservation, hence allowing us
> > > to use fast counter reads everywhere to determine if the CIL is
> > > empty or not, rather than using the list itself. This is important
> > > for later patches where the CIL is moved to percpu lists
> > > and hence cannot use list_empty() to detect an empty CIL. Hence we
> > > provide a low overhead, lockless mechanism for determining if the
> > > CIL is empty or not via this mechanisms. All other percpu counter
> > > updates use a large batch count so they aggregate on the local CPU
> > > and minimise global sum updates.
> > >
> > > The xc_ctx_lock rwsem protects draining the percpu counters to the
> > > context's ticket, similar to the way it allows access to the CIL
> > > without using the xc_cil_lock. i.e. the CIL push has exclusive
> > > access to the CIL, the context and the percpu counters while holding
> > > the xc_ctx_lock. This ensures that we can sum and zero the counters
> > > atomically from the perspective of the transaction commit side of
> > > the push. i.e. they reset to zero atomically with the CIL context
> > > swap and hence we don't need to have the percpu counters attached to
> > > the CIL context.
> > >
> > > Performance wise, this increases the transaction rate from
> > > ~620,000/s to around 750,000/second. Using a 32-way concurrent
> > > create instead of 16-way on a 32p/16GB virtual machine:
> > >
> > > create time rate unlink time
> > > unpatched 2m03s 472k/s+/-9k/s 3m6s
> > > patched 1m56s 533k/s+/-28k/s 2m34
> > >
> > > Notably, the system time for the create went from 44m20s down to
> > > 38m37s, whilst going faster. There is more variance, but I think
> > > that is from the cacheline contention having inconsistent overhead.
> > >
> > > XXX: probably should split into two patches
> > >
> >
> > Yes please. :)
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c | 99 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_log_priv.h | 2 +
> > > 2 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c
> > > index b43f0e8f43f2e..746c841757ed1 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c
> > > @@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ xlog_cil_insert_items(
> > > struct xfs_log_item *lip;
> > > int len = 0;
> > > int diff_iovecs = 0;
> > > - int iclog_space;
> > > + int iclog_space, space_used;
> > > int iovhdr_res = 0, split_res = 0, ctx_res = 0;
> > >
> >
> > fs/xfs//xfs_log_cil.c: In function ‘xlog_cil_insert_items’:
> > fs/xfs//xfs_log_cil.c:396:21: warning: unused variable ‘space_used’ [-Wunused-variable]
> >
> > > ASSERT(tp);
> > > @@ -403,17 +403,16 @@ xlog_cil_insert_items(
> > > * are done so it doesn't matter exactly how we update the CIL.
> > > */
> > > xlog_cil_insert_format_items(log, tp, &len, &diff_iovecs);
> > > -
> > > - spin_lock(&cil->xc_cil_lock);
> > > -
> > > /* account for space used by new iovec headers */
> > > +
> > > iovhdr_res = diff_iovecs * sizeof(xlog_op_header_t);
> > > len += iovhdr_res;
> > > ctx->nvecs += diff_iovecs;
> > >
> > > - /* attach the transaction to the CIL if it has any busy extents */
> > > - if (!list_empty(&tp->t_busy))
> > > - list_splice_init(&tp->t_busy, &ctx->busy_extents);
> > > + /*
> > > + * The ticket can't go away from us here, so we can do racy sampling
> > > + * and precalculate everything.
> > > + */
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Now transfer enough transaction reservation to the context ticket
> > > @@ -421,27 +420,28 @@ xlog_cil_insert_items(
> > > * reservation has to grow as well as the current reservation as we
> > > * steal from tickets so we can correctly determine the space used
> > > * during the transaction commit.
> > > + *
> > > + * We use percpu_counter_add_batch() here to force the addition into the
> > > + * global sum immediately. This will result in percpu_counter_read() now
> > > + * always returning a non-zero value, and hence we'll only ever have a
> > > + * very short race window on new contexts.
> > > */
> > > - if (ctx->ticket->t_curr_res == 0) {
> > > + if (percpu_counter_read(&cil->xc_curr_res) == 0) {
> > > ctx_res = ctx->ticket->t_unit_res;
> > > - ctx->ticket->t_curr_res = ctx_res;
> > > tp->t_ticket->t_curr_res -= ctx_res;
> > > + percpu_counter_add_batch(&cil->xc_curr_res, ctx_res, ctx_res - 1);
> > > }
> >
> > Ok, so we open a race here at the cost of stealing more reservation than
> > necessary from the transaction. Seems harmless, but I would like to see
> > some quantification/analysis on what a 'very short race window' is in
> > this context.
>
> About 20 instructions when the value is zero. The number of racers
> will be dependent on how many threads are blocked in commit on the
> xc_ctx_lock while a CIL push is in progress. The unit reservation
> stolen here for the CIL is:
>
Well we're also in the transaction commit path, which these changes are
intended to improve. The post push situation makes sense for a worst
case scenario, though, as that can probably line up a bunch of CPUs
behind the ctx lock.
> xfs_log_calc_unit_res(mp, 0)
> ~= 4 * sizeof(xlog_op_header) +
> sizeof(xlog_trans_header) +
> sizeof(sector) +
> log stripe unit roundoff
>
> So for a typical 4k log sector, we are talking about ~6kB of unit
> reservation per thread that races here. For a 256k log stripe unit,
> then it's going to be about 520kB per racing thread.
>
> That said, every thread that races has this reservation available,
> and the amount reserved adds to the space used in the CIL. Hence the
> only downside of racing here is that the CIL background pushes
> earlier because it hits the threshold sooner. That isn't a huge
> issue - if we can't push immediately then the CIL will
> run to the hard limit and block commits there; that overrun space is
> larger than amount of space "wasted" by racing commits here.
>
Right, it's more of a tradeoff of holding on to unused reservation a bit
longer for performance. Note that the background CIL push is based on
context size, not reservation size, so I don't see how that would be
affected by this particular race.
> > Particularly as it relates to percpu functionality. Does
> > the window scale with cpu count, for example? It might not matter either
>
> Not really. We need a thundering herd to cause issues, and this
> occurs after formatting an item so we won't get a huge thundering
> herd even when lots of threads block on the xc_ctx_lock waiting for
> a push to complete.
>
It would be nice to have some debug code somewhere that somehow or
another asserts or warns if the CIL reservation exceeds some
insane/unexpected heuristic based on the current size of the context. I
don't know what that code or heuristic looks like (i.e. multiple factors
of the ctx size?) so I'm obviously handwaving. Just something to think
about if we can come up with a way to accomplish that opportunistically.
> > way because we expect any given transaction to accommodate the ctx res,
> > but it would be good to understand the behavior here so we can think
> > about potential side effects, if any.
>
> I haven't been able to come up with any adverse side effects except
> for "performance might drop a bit if we reserve too much and push
> early", but that is tempered by the fact that performance goes up
> much more than we might lose by getting rid of the xc_cil_lock
> bottleneck.
>
FWIW, a more extreme test vector could be to steal the remainder of the
transaction reservation for the CIL ticket and see how that affects
things. That's probably more suited for a local test than something to
live in the upstream code, though.
> > > /* do we need space for more log record headers? */
> > > - iclog_space = log->l_iclog_size - log->l_iclog_hsize;
> > > - if (len > 0 && (ctx->space_used / iclog_space !=
> > > - (ctx->space_used + len) / iclog_space)) {
> > > + if (len > 0 && !ctx_res) {
> > > + iclog_space = log->l_iclog_size - log->l_iclog_hsize;
> > > split_res = (len + iclog_space - 1) / iclog_space;
> > > /* need to take into account split region headers, too */
> > > split_res *= log->l_iclog_hsize + sizeof(struct xlog_op_header);
> > > - ctx->ticket->t_unit_res += split_res;
> > > - ctx->ticket->t_curr_res += split_res;
> > > tp->t_ticket->t_curr_res -= split_res;
> > > ASSERT(tp->t_ticket->t_curr_res >= len);
> > > }
> >
> > Similarly here, assume additional split reservation for every
> > context rather than checking each commit. Seems reasonable in
> > principle, but just from a cursory glance this doesn't cover the
> > case of the context expanding beyond more than two iclogs. IOW,
> > the current logic adds split_res if the size increase from the
> > current transaction expands the ctx into another iclog than before
> > the transaction. The new logic only seems to add split_res for the
> > first transaction into the ctx. Also note
>
> No, I changed it to apply to any vector length longer than a single
> iclog except for transactions that have taken the unit reservation
> above.
>
Ok, I had the ctx_res logic inverted in my head. So it's not that
split_res is only added for the first transaction, but rather we treat
every transaction that didn't contribute unit res as if it crosses an
iclog boundary. That seems much more reasonable, though it does add to
the "overreservation" of the ticket so I'll reemphasize the request for
some form of debug/trace check that helps analyze runtime CIL ticket
reservation accounting. ;)
OTOH, this skips the split_res in the case where a single large
multi-iclog transaction happens to be the first in the ctx, right? That
doesn't seem that unlikely a scenario considering minimum iclog and
worst case transaction unit res sizes. It actually makes me wonder what
happens if the CIL ticket underruns.. :P
> Sampling the space used isn't accurate here, and we do not want to
> be doing an accurate sum across all CPUs, hence trying to detect a
> reservation crossing an iclog boundary is difficult. Hence I just
> took the reservation for anything that is guaranteed to cross an
> iclog boundary.
>
Right.. though it looks more like we take the reservation for anything
that might possibly cross an iclog boundary vs. anything that is
guaranteed to do so, because we can't really establish the latter
without batching up the current size.
Brian
> > that len seems to be a factor in the calculation of split_res, but it's
> > not immediately clear to me what impact filtering the split_res
> > calculation as such has in that regard.
>
> The len used in the split_res calc guarantees that we always have at
> least 1 log and op header accounted for by a split, and if the
> vector length is greater than a single iclog it will include a
> header for every iclog that the vector may span. i.e. if len >
> iclog_space, it will reserve 2 extra iclog headers and op headers as
> it may split across 3 iclogs....
>
> > (BTW the comment above this hunk needs an update if we do end up with
> > some special logic here.)
>
> Definitely. :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
