Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752039Ab0LHE2Y (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2010 23:28:24 -0500 Received: from bld-mail12.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.97]:55609 "EHLO mail.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751815Ab0LHE2X (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2010 23:28:23 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:28:16 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: Nick Piggin Cc: Nick Piggin , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/46] rcu-walk and dcache scaling Message-ID: <20101208042816.GA32766@dastard> References: <20101207215653.GA25864@dastard> <20101208033212.GF29333@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20101208033212.GF29333@dastard> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 10554 Lines: 192 On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:32:12PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 12:47:42PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 09:15:58PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > >> > > >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/npiggin/linux-npiggin.git vfs-scale-working > > >> > > >> Here is an new set of vfs patches for review, not that there was much interest > > >> last time they were posted. It is structured like: > > >> > > >> * preparation patches > > >> * introduce new locks to take over dcache_lock, then remove it > > >> * cleaning up and reworking things for new locks > > >> * rcu-walk path walking > > >> * start on some fine grained locking steps > > > > > > Stress test doing: > > > > > > ? ? ? ?single thread 50M inode create > > > ? ? ? ?single thread rm -rf > > > ? ? ? ?2-way 50M inode create > > > ? ? ? ?2-way rm -rf > > > ? ? ? ?4-way 50M inode create > > > ? ? ? ?4-way rm -rf > > > ? ? ? ?8-way 50M inode create > > > ? ? ? ?8-way rm -rf > > > ? ? ? ?8-way 250M inode create > > > ? ? ? ?8-way rm -rf > > > > > > Failed about 5 minutes into the "4-way rm -rf" (~3 hours into the test) > > > with a CPU stuck spinning on here: > > > > > > [37372.084012] NMI backtrace for cpu 5 > > > [37372.084012] CPU 5 > > > [37372.084012] Modules linked in: > > > [37372.084012] > > > [37372.084012] Pid: 15214, comm: rm Not tainted 2.6.37-rc4-dgc+ #797 /Bochs > > > [37372.084012] RIP: 0010:[] ?[] __ticket_spin_lock+0x14/0x20 > > > [37372.084012] RSP: 0018:ffff880114643c98 ?EFLAGS: 00000213 > > > [37372.084012] RAX: 0000000000008801 RBX: ffff8800687be6c0 RCX: ffff8800c4eb2688 > > > [37372.084012] RDX: ffff880114643d38 RSI: ffff8800dfd4ea80 RDI: ffff880114643d14 > > > [37372.084012] RBP: ffff880114643c98 R08: 0000000000000003 R09: 0000000000000000 > > > [37372.084012] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: dead000000200200 R12: ffff880114643d14 > > > [37372.084012] R13: ffff880114643cb8 R14: ffff880114643d38 R15: ffff8800687be71c > > > [37372.084012] FS: ?00007fd6d7c93700(0000) GS:ffff8800dfd40000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > > > [37372.084012] CS: ?0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b > > > [37372.084012] CR2: 0000000000bbd108 CR3: 0000000107146000 CR4: 00000000000006e0 > > > [37372.084012] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 > > > [37372.084012] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 > > > [37372.084012] Process rm (pid: 15214, threadinfo ffff880114642000, task ffff88011b16f890) > > > [37372.084012] Stack: > > > [37372.084012] ?ffff880114643ca8 ffffffff81ad044e ffff880114643cf8 ffffffff81167ae7 > > > [37372.084012] ?0000000000000000 ffff880114643d38 000000000000000e ffff88011901d800 > > > [37372.084012] ?ffff8800cdb7cf5c ffff88011901d8e0 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 > > > [37372.084012] Call Trace: > > > [37372.084012] ?[] _raw_spin_lock+0xe/0x20 > > > [37372.084012] ?[] shrink_dentry_list+0x47/0x370 > > > [37372.084012] ?[] __shrink_dcache_sb+0x14e/0x1e0 > > > [37372.084012] ?[] shrink_dcache_parent+0x276/0x2d0 > > > [37372.084012] ?[] ? _raw_spin_lock+0xe/0x20 > > > [37372.084012] ?[] dentry_unhash+0x42/0x80 > > > [37372.084012] ?[] vfs_rmdir+0x68/0x100 > > > [37372.084012] ?[] do_rmdir+0x113/0x130 > > > [37372.084012] ?[] ? filp_close+0x5d/0x90 > > > [37372.084012] ?[] sys_unlinkat+0x35/0x40 > > > [37372.084012] ?[] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > > > > OK good, with any luck, that's the same bug. > > > > Is this XFS? > > Yes. > > > Is there any concurrent activity happening on the same dentries? > > Not from an application perspective. > > > Ie. are the rm -rf threads running on the same directories, > > No, each thread operating on a different directory. > > > or is there any reclaim happening in the background? > > IIRC, kswapd was consuming about 5-10% of a CPU during parallel > unlink tests. Mainly reclaiming XFS inodes, I think, but there may > be dentry cache reclaim going as well. Turns out that the kswapd peaks are upwards of 50% of a CPU for a few seconds, then idle for 10-15s. Typical perf top output of kswapd while it is active during unlinks is: samples pcnt function DSO _______ _____ ___________________________ _________________ 17168.00 10.2% __call_rcu [kernel.kallsyms] 13223.00 7.8% kmem_cache_free [kernel.kallsyms] 12917.00 7.6% down_write [kernel.kallsyms] 12665.00 7.5% xfs_iunlock [kernel.kallsyms] 10493.00 6.2% xfs_reclaim_inode_grab [kernel.kallsyms] 9314.00 5.5% __lookup_tag [kernel.kallsyms] 9040.00 5.4% radix_tree_delete [kernel.kallsyms] 8694.00 5.1% is_bad_inode [kernel.kallsyms] 7639.00 4.5% __ticket_spin_lock [kernel.kallsyms] 6821.00 4.0% _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore [kernel.kallsyms] 5484.00 3.2% __d_drop [kernel.kallsyms] 5114.00 3.0% xfs_reclaim_inode [kernel.kallsyms] 4626.00 2.7% __rcu_process_callbacks [kernel.kallsyms] 3556.00 2.1% up_write [kernel.kallsyms] 3206.00 1.9% _cond_resched [kernel.kallsyms] 3129.00 1.9% xfs_qm_dqdetach [kernel.kallsyms] 2327.00 1.4% radix_tree_tag_clear [kernel.kallsyms] 2327.00 1.4% call_rcu_sched [kernel.kallsyms] 2262.00 1.3% __ticket_spin_unlock [kernel.kallsyms] 2215.00 1.3% xfs_ilock [kernel.kallsyms] 2200.00 1.3% radix_tree_gang_lookup_tag [kernel.kallsyms] 1982.00 1.2% xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag [kernel.kallsyms] 1736.00 1.0% xfs_trans_unlocked_item [kernel.kallsyms] 1707.00 1.0% __ticket_spin_trylock [kernel.kallsyms] 1688.00 1.0% xfs_perag_get_tag [kernel.kallsyms] 1660.00 1.0% flat_send_IPI_mask [kernel.kallsyms] 1538.00 0.9% xfs_inode_item_destroy [kernel.kallsyms] 1312.00 0.8% __shrink_dcache_sb [kernel.kallsyms] 940.00 0.6% xfs_perag_put [kernel.kallsyms] So there is some dentry cache reclaim going on. FWIW, it appears there is quite a lot of RCU freeing overhead (~15% more CPU time) in the work kswapd is doing during these unlinks, too. I just had a look at kswapd when a 8-way create is running - it's running at 50-60% of a cpu for seconds at a time. I caught this while it was doing pure XFS inode cache reclaim (~10s sample, kswapd reclaimed ~1M inodes): samples pcnt function DSO _______ _____ ___________________________ _________________ 27171.00 9.0% __call_rcu [kernel.kallsyms] 21491.00 7.1% down_write [kernel.kallsyms] 20916.00 6.9% xfs_reclaim_inode [kernel.kallsyms] 20313.00 6.7% radix_tree_delete [kernel.kallsyms] 15828.00 5.3% kmem_cache_free [kernel.kallsyms] 15819.00 5.2% xfs_idestroy_fork [kernel.kallsyms] 14893.00 4.9% is_bad_inode [kernel.kallsyms] 14666.00 4.9% _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore [kernel.kallsyms] 14191.00 4.7% xfs_reclaim_inode_grab [kernel.kallsyms] 14105.00 4.7% xfs_iunlock [kernel.kallsyms] 10916.00 3.6% __ticket_spin_lock [kernel.kallsyms] 10125.00 3.4% xfs_iflush_cluster [kernel.kallsyms] 8221.00 2.7% xfs_qm_dqdetach [kernel.kallsyms] 7639.00 2.5% xfs_trans_unlocked_item [kernel.kallsyms] 7028.00 2.3% xfs_synchronize_times [kernel.kallsyms] 6974.00 2.3% up_write [kernel.kallsyms] 5870.00 1.9% call_rcu_sched [kernel.kallsyms] 5634.00 1.9% _cond_resched [kernel.kallsyms] Which is showing a similar amount of RCU overhead as the unlink as above. And this while it was doing dentry cache reclaim (~10s sample): 35921.00 15.7% __d_drop [kernel.kallsyms] 30056.00 13.1% __ticket_spin_trylock [kernel.kallsyms] 29066.00 12.7% __ticket_spin_lock [kernel.kallsyms] 19043.00 8.3% __call_rcu [kernel.kallsyms] 10098.00 4.4% iput [kernel.kallsyms] 7013.00 3.1% __shrink_dcache_sb [kernel.kallsyms] 6774.00 3.0% __percpu_counter_add [kernel.kallsyms] 6708.00 2.9% radix_tree_tag_set [kernel.kallsyms] 5362.00 2.3% xfs_inactive [kernel.kallsyms] 5130.00 2.2% __ticket_spin_unlock [kernel.kallsyms] 4884.00 2.1% call_rcu_sched [kernel.kallsyms] 4621.00 2.0% dentry_lru_del [kernel.kallsyms] 3735.00 1.6% bit_waitqueue [kernel.kallsyms] 3727.00 1.6% dentry_iput [kernel.kallsyms] 3473.00 1.5% shrink_icache_memory [kernel.kallsyms] 3279.00 1.4% kfree [kernel.kallsyms] 3101.00 1.4% xfs_perag_get [kernel.kallsyms] 2516.00 1.1% kmem_cache_free [kernel.kallsyms] 2272.00 1.0% shrink_dentry_list [kernel.kallsyms] I've never really seen any signficant dentry cache reclaim overhead in profiles of these workloads before, so this was a bit of a surprise.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/