[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 0/8] Deferred dput() and iput() -- reducing lock contention
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Mike Waychison a écrit :
>> We've noticed that at times it can become very easy to have a system begin to
>> livelock on dcache_lock/inode_lock (specifically in atomic_dec_and_lock()) when
>> a lot of dentries are getting finalized at the same time (massive delete and
>> large fdtable destructions are two paths I've seen cause problems).
>> This patchset is an attempt to try and reduce the locking overheads associated
>> with final dput() and final iput(). This is done by batching dentries and
>> inodes into per-process queues and processing them in 'parallel' to consolidate
>> some of the locking.
>> Besides various workload testing, I threw together a load (at the end of this
>> email) that causes massive fdtables (50K sockets by default) to get destroyed
>> on each cpu in the system. It also populates the dcache for procfs on those
>> tasks for good measure. Comparing lock_stat results (hardware is a Sun x4600
>> M2 populated with 8 4-core 2.3GHz packages (32 CPUs) + 128GiB RAM):
> Hello Mike
> Seems quite a large/intrusive infrastructure for a well known problem.
> I even wasted some time on it.
> But it seems nobody cared too much or people were too busy.
> (patch 6 should be discarded as followups show it was wrong
> [PATH 6/7] fs: struct file move from call_rcu() to SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU)
> sockets / pipes dont need dcache_lock or inode_lock at all, I am
> sure Google machines also uses sockets :)

Yup :) I'll try to take a look at your patches this week. At a
minimum, the removal of the locks seems highly desirable.

> Your test/bench program is quite biased (populating dcache for procfs, using
> 50k filedesc on 32 cpu, not very realistic IMHO).

Yup, extremely biased. It was meant to hurt the dput/iput path
specifically and I used it as a way to compare apples to apples
with/without the changes. It is still representative of a real-world
workload we see though (our frontend servers when they are restarted
have many tcp sockets, easily more than 50K each).

> I had a workload with processes using 1.000.000 file descriptors,
> (mainly sockets) and got some latency problems when they had to exit().
> This problem was addressed by one cond_resched() added in close_files()
> (commit 944be0b224724fcbf63c3a3fe3a5478c325a6547 )

Yup. We pulled that change into our tree a while back for the same
reason. It doesn't help the lock contention issue though.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-20 21:03    [W:0.142 / U:1.908 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site