[Ocfs2-devel] [RFC] ocfs2: Remove j_trans_barrier

[Tao Ma <tm@tao.ma>]

Hi Mark,
On 12/07/2010 09:13 AM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 02:35:58PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
>> Hi Joel,
>>
>> On 11/25/2010 06:08 PM, Joel Becker wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 02:08:17PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
>>>> 	j_trans_barrier in ocfs2 is used to protect some journal operations
>>>> in ocfs2. So normally, it is used as belows:
>>>> 1. In journal transaction. When we start a transaction, We will
>>>> down_read it and j_num_trans will be increased accordingly(in case
>>>> of a cluster environment). It will be up_read when we do
>>>> ocfs2_commit_trans.
>>>> 2. In ocfs2_commit_cache, we will down_write it and then call
>>>> jbd2_journal_flush, increase j_trans_id, reset j_num_trans and
>>>> finally call up_write. This function is used by thread ocfs2cmt.
>>>
>>> <snip>   slow filesystem...</snip>
>>>
>>>> My solution is that:
>>>> 1. remove j_trans_barrier
>>>> 2. Add a flag ci_checkpointing in ocfs2_caching_info:
>>>>      1) When we find this caching_info needs checkpoint, set this flag
>>>> and start the checkpointing(in ocfs2_ci_checkpointed). And the
>>>> downconvert request will be requeued so that we can check and clear
>>>> this flag next time it is handled.
>>>>      2) Clear the flag when there is no need for checkpointing this
>>>> ci(also in ocfs2_ci_checkpointed) during check_downconvert.
>>>> 3. make sure when we journal_access some blocks, the caching_info
>>>> can't be in the state of checkpointing. I think if we are
>>>> checkpointing an caching_info, we shouldn't be able to
>>>> journal_access it since it is just required to downconvert and we
>>>> shouldn't have the lock now? So perhaps a BUG_ON should work?
>
> A couple thoughts.
>
> - Journal-wise, the following code provides any barrier
>    we need to ensure that a transaction can't be around when we're
>    checkpointing:
>
> 	jbd2_journal_lock_updates(journal->j_journal);
> 	status = jbd2_journal_flush(journal->j_journal);
> 	jbd2_journal_unlock_updates(journal->j_journal);
>
> - Please be sure that we don't lose any improvement the check
>    fo zero transactions gives us.
>
> - Joel mentioned to me that you actually saw a performance improvement?
>    That's interesting, I would have assumed that we wouldn't get any such
>    improvement as the journal code would be blocking us anyway in all the
>    places we use j_trans_barrier.
The reason is that with j_trans_barrier, we have to wait for all the 
transaction to be flushed and then do ocfs2_start_trans even it has no 
relationship with this inode. So if we remove the j_trans_barrier, 
ocfs2_start_trans won't be blocked and it is fast.
>
>>>
>>> Tao,
>>> 	I'm sorry I haven't responded sooner.  This proposal didn't
>>> strike me as quite right, and I didn't have time to think about it.
>>> I have a couple of concerns.
>> Never mind. I knew you had a lot of stuff to handle with these days.
>>> 	First, we don't always checkpoint from a downconvert.  We do it
>>> in clear_inode() as well, when we are flushing an inode from cache.
>>> This may not have anything to do with the lock we're caring about, eg on
>>> other inodes.  What I mean is, the caching info for the inode we care
>>> about may not be checkpointing, but the journal as a whole is.  We need
>>> to stop all action while that is happening.
>> Sorry I don't get your last sentense. Could you please describe it in
>> detail? Yes, clear_inode does do checkpointing, but actually the whole
>> thing is self-contained. In ocfs2_checkpoint_inode, it can checkpoint
>> the inode by itself and has no relationship with downconvert.
>>> 	Second, there is the flip side.  How do we wait until all open
>>> transactions are complete before checkpointing?  The down_write() in
>>> ocfs2_commit_cache() blocks until all open transactions up_read().  In
>>> your scheme, there is no care taken for open transactions against the
>>> journal.  Remember, the journal is global to the node.
>> yes, I was thinking of that too. But finally I got that we don't need to
>> care for it. As we have agreed above, there are 2 places we do
>> checkpoint for an inode. As for clear_inode, we don't care since it is
>> going to be cleared and no transaction could be opened against that.
>> Another is downconvert, in which case we shouldn't be able to open a
>> transaction and access that caching_info(we should always get the
>> cluster lock before we do access it). We can add a BUG_ON to
>> journal_access which can facilitate us to find the case that we don't
>> have the lock while accessing it.
>
>
>
>> btw, I have some draft patch for it, I haven't tested it much these
>> days. But if you are interested, I can send it to the mail list for more
>> review.
>
> Post it, with some numbers showing the performance difference :)
ok, but you know, I am still relocating... So maybe one or 2 weeks 
later, after all are settled down and the env is established, I can give 
you some number. ;)

Regards,
Tao