On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 03:25:41PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 04:11:31PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > The xc_cil_lock is the most highly contended lock in XFS now. To > > start the process of getting rid of it, lift the initial reservation > > of the CIL log space out from under the xc_cil_lock. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c | 27 ++++++++++++--------------- > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c > > index e6e36488f0c7..50101336a7f4 100644 > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c > > @@ -430,23 +430,19 @@ xlog_cil_insert_items( > > */ > > xlog_cil_insert_format_items(log, tp, &len); > > > > - spin_lock(&cil->xc_cil_lock); > > Hm, so looking ahead, the next few patches keep kicking this spin_lock > call further and further down in the file, and the commit messages give > me the impression that this might even go away entirely? > > Let me see, the CIL locks are: > > xc_ctx_lock, which prevents transactions from committing (into the cil) > any time the CIL itself is preparing a new commited item context so that > it can xlog_write (to disk) the log vectors associated with the current > context. Yes. > xc_cil_lock, which serializes transactions adding their items to the CIL > in the first place, hence the motivation to reduce this hot lock? Right - it protects manipulations to the CIL log item tracking and tracking state. This spin lock is the first global serialisation point in the transaction commit path, so it effectively sees unbound concurrency (reservations allow hundreds of transactions can be committing simultaneously). > xc_push_lock, which I think is used to coordinate the CIL push worker > with all the upper level callers that want to force log items to disk? Yes, this one protects the current push state. > And the locking order of these three locks is... > > xc_ctx_lock --> xc_push_lock > | > \---------> xc_cil_lock > > Assuming I grokked all that, then I guess moving the spin_lock call > works out because the test_and_clear_bit is atomic. The rest of the > accounting stuff here is just getting moved further down in the file and > is still protected by xc_cil_lock. Yes. > If I understood all that, > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks! -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
