Re: 9p fs-cache tests/benchmark (was: 9p fscache Duplicate cookie detected)

[Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>]

On Mittwoch, 30. März 2022 14:21:16 CEST Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> I made some tests & benchmarks regarding the fs-cache issue of 9p, running
> different kernel versions and kernel configurations in comparison.
[...]
> Case  Linux kernel version           .config  msize    cache  duration  host cpu  errors/warnings
>
> A)    5.17.0+[2] + msize patches[1]  debug    4186112  mmap   20m 40s   ~80%      none
> B)    5.17.0+[2] + msize patches[1]  debug    4186112  loose  31m 28s   ~35%      several errors (compilation completed)
> C)    5.17.0+[2] + msize patches[1]  debug    507904   mmap   20m 25s   ~84%      none
> D)    5.17.0+[2] + msize patches[1]  debug    507904   loose  31m 2s    ~33%      several errors (compilation completed)
> E)    5.17.0+[2]                     debug    512000   mmap   23m 45s   ~75%      none
> F)    5.17.0+[2]                     debug    512000   loose  32m 6s    ~31%      several errors (compilation completed)
> G)    5.17.0+[2]                     release  512000   mmap   23m 18s   ~76%      none
> H)    5.17.0+[2]                     release  512000   loose  32m 33s   ~31%      several errors (compilation completed)
> I)    5.17.0+[2] + msize patches[1]  release  4186112  mmap   20m 30s   ~83%      none
> J)    5.17.0+[2] + msize patches[1]  release  4186112  loose  31m 21s   ~31%      several errors (compilation completed)
> K)    5.10.84                        release  512000   mmap   39m 20s   ~80%      none
> L)    5.10.84                        release  512000   loose  13m 40s   ~55%      none
[...]
> About the errors: I actually already see errors with cache=loose and recent
> kernel version just when booting the guest OS. For these tests I chose some
> sources which allowed me to complete the build to capture some benchmark as
> well, I got some "soft" errors with those, but the build completed at least.
> I had other sources OTOH which did not complete though and aborted with
> certain invalid file descriptor errors, which I obviously could not use for
> those benchmarks here.

I used git-bisect to identify the commit that broke 9p behaviour, and it is
indeed this one:

commit eb497943fa215897f2f60fd28aa6fe52da27ca6c (HEAD, refs/bisect/bad)
Author: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue Nov 2 08:29:55 2021 +0000

    9p: Convert to using the netfs helper lib to do reads and caching
    
    Convert the 9p filesystem to use the netfs helper lib to handle readpage,
    readahead and write_begin, converting those into a common issue_op for the
    filesystem itself to handle.  The netfs helper lib also handles reading
    from fscache if a cache is available, and interleaving reads from both
    sources.
    
    This change also switches from the old fscache I/O API to the new one,
    meaning that fscache no longer keeps track of netfs pages and instead does
    async DIO between the backing files and the 9p file pagecache.  As a part
    of this change, the handling of PG_fscache changes.  It now just means that
    the cache has a write I/O operation in progress on a page (PG_locked
    is used for a read I/O op).
    
    Note that this is a cut-down version of the fscache rewrite and does not
    change any of the cookie and cache coherency handling.
    
    Changes
    =======
    ver #4:
      - Rebase on top of folios.
      - Don't use wait_on_page_bit_killable().
    
    ver #3:
      - v9fs_req_issue_op() needs to terminate the subrequest.
      - v9fs_write_end() needs to call SetPageUptodate() a bit more often.
      - It's not CONFIG_{AFS,V9FS}_FSCACHE[1]
      - v9fs_init_rreq() should take a ref on the p9_fid and the cleanup should
        drop it [from Dominique Martinet].
    
    Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
    Reviewed-and-tested-by: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
    cc: v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net
    cc: linux-cachefs@redhat.com
    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/YUm+xucHxED+1MJp@codewreck.org/ [1]
    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/163162772646.438332.16323773205855053535.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk/ # rfc
    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/163189109885.2509237.7153668924503399173.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk/ # rfc v2
    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/163363943896.1980952.1226527304649419689.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk/ # v3
    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/163551662876.1877519.14706391695553204156.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk/ # v4
    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/163584179557.4023316.11089762304657644342.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk # rebase on folio
    Signed-off-by: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>

So Linux kernel v5.15 is fine, v5.16 is broken.

Best regards,
Christian Schoenebeck