lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RRC PATCH 2/2] vfs: Use per-cpu list for superblock's inode list
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 08:31:20PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> When many threads are trying to add or delete inode to or from
> a superblock's s_inodes list, spinlock contention on the list can
> become a performance bottleneck.
>
> This patch changes the s_inodes field to become a per-cpu list with
> per-cpu spinlocks.
>
> With an exit microbenchmark that creates a large number of threads,
> attachs many inodes to them and then exits. The runtimes of that
> microbenchmark with 1000 threads before and after the patch on a
> 4-socket Intel E7-4820 v3 system (40 cores, 80 threads) were as
> follows:
>
> Kernel Elapsed Time System Time
> ------ ------------ -----------
> Vanilla 4.5-rc4 65.29s 82m14s
> Patched 4.5-rc4 22.81s 23m03s

Pretty good :)

My fsmark tests usually show up a fair bit of contention - moving
250k inodes through the cache every second over 16p does generate a
bit of load on the list. The patch makes the inode list add/del
operations disappear completely from the perf profiles, and there's
a marginal decrease in runtime (~4m40s vs 4m30s). I think the global
lock is right on the edge of breakdown under this load, though, so
if I was testing on a larger system I think the difference would be
much bigger.

I'll run some more testing on it, see if anything breaks.

A few comments on the code follow.

> @@ -1866,8 +1866,8 @@ void iterate_bdevs(void (*func)(struct block_device *, void *), void *arg)
> {
> struct inode *inode, *old_inode = NULL;
>
> - spin_lock(&blockdev_superblock->s_inode_list_lock);
> - list_for_each_entry(inode, &blockdev_superblock->s_inodes, i_sb_list) {
> + for_all_percpu_list_entries_simple(inode, percpu_lock,
> + blockdev_superblock->s_inodes_cpu, i_sb_list) {

This is kind what I meant about names getting way too long. How
about something like:

#define walk_sb_inodes(inode, sb, pcpu_lock) \
for_all_percpu_list_entries_simple(inode, pcpu_lock, \
sb->s_inodes_list, i_sb_list)

#define walk_sb_inodes_end(pcpu_lock) end_all_percpu_list_entries(pcpu_lock)

for brevity?

> @@ -189,7 +190,7 @@ void fsnotify_unmount_inodes(struct super_block *sb)
> spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
>
> /* In case the dropping of a reference would nuke next_i. */
> - while (&next_i->i_sb_list != &sb->s_inodes) {
> + while (&next_i->i_sb_list.list != percpu_head) {
> spin_lock(&next_i->i_lock);
> if (!(next_i->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE)) &&
> atomic_read(&next_i->i_count)) {
> @@ -199,16 +200,16 @@ void fsnotify_unmount_inodes(struct super_block *sb)
> break;
> }
> spin_unlock(&next_i->i_lock);
> - next_i = list_next_entry(next_i, i_sb_list);
> + next_i = list_next_entry(next_i, i_sb_list.list);

pcpu_list_next_entry(next_i, i_sb_list)?

> @@ -1397,9 +1398,8 @@ struct super_block {
> */
> int s_stack_depth;
>
> - /* s_inode_list_lock protects s_inodes */
> - spinlock_t s_inode_list_lock ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> - struct list_head s_inodes; /* all inodes */
> + /* The percpu locks protect s_inodes_cpu */
> + PERCPU_LIST_HEAD(s_inodes_cpu); /* all inodes */

There is no need to encode the type of list into the name.
i.e. drop the "_cpu" suffix - we can see it's a percpu list from the
declaration.

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-17 12:01    [W:0.580 / U:1.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site