Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-199369-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Feedback-ID: id8a24192:Fastmail
Message-ID: <233a9fdf-13ea-488b-a593-5566fc9f5d92@fastmail.fm>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 17:32:38 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [HELP] FUSE writeback performance bottleneck
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com>,
 "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 lege.wang@jaguarmicro.com
References: <495d2400-1d96-4924-99d3-8b2952e05fc3@linux.alibaba.com>
 <67771830-977f-4fca-9d0b-0126abf120a5@fastmail.fm>
 <CAJfpeguts=V9KkBsMJN_WfdkLHPzB6RswGvumVHUMJ87zOAbDQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm>
Content-Language: en-US, de-DE, fr
In-Reply-To: <CAJfpeguts=V9KkBsMJN_WfdkLHPzB6RswGvumVHUMJ87zOAbDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 6/3/24 17:19, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 16:43, Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/3/24 08:17, Jingbo Xu wrote:
>>> Hi, Miklos,
>>>
>>> We spotted a performance bottleneck for FUSE writeback in which the
>>> writeback kworker has consumed nearly 100% CPU, among which 40% CPU is
>>> used for copy_page().
>>>
>>> fuse_writepages_fill
>>>   alloc tmp_page
>>>   copy_highpage
>>>
>>> This is because of FUSE writeback design (see commit 3be5a52b30aa
>>> ("fuse: support writable mmap")), which newly allocates a temp page for
>>> each dirty page to be written back, copy content of dirty page to temp
>>> page, and then write back the temp page instead.  This special design is
>>> intentional to avoid potential deadlocked due to buggy or even malicious
>>> fuse user daemon.
>>
>> I also noticed that and I admin that I don't understand it yet. The commit says
>>
>> <quote>
>>     The basic problem is that there can be no guarantee about the time in which
>>     the userspace filesystem will complete a write.  It may be buggy or even
>>     malicious, and fail to complete WRITE requests.  We don't want unrelated parts
>>     of the system to grind to a halt in such cases.
>> </quote>
>>
>>
>> Timing - NFS/cifs/etc have the same issue? Even a local file system has no guarantees
>> how fast storage is?
> 
> I don't have the details but it boils down to the fact that the
> allocation context provided by GFP_NOFS (PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS) cannot be
> used by the unprivileged userspace server (and even if it could,
> there's no guarantee, that it would).
> 
> When this mechanism was introduced, the deadlock was a real
> possibility.  I'm not sure that it can still happen, but proving that
> it cannot might be difficult.

Thanks Miklos!
I need to go through all of the GFP_NOFS allocation, but I wonder if we
could introduce cached allocations and fall back to the slow path if
that didn't work.


Thanks,
Bernd