Re: How git affects kernel.org performance

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 09:55:26 +0100
Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 09:39:42PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > 
> > > During extremely high load, it appears that what slows kernel.org down more
> > > than anything else is the time that each individual getdents() call takes.
> > > When I've looked this I've observed times from 200 ms to almost 2 seconds!
> > > Since an unpacked *OR* unpruned git tree adds 256 directories to a cleanly
> > > packed tree, you can do the math yourself.
> > 
> > "getdents()" is totally serialized by the inode semaphore. It's one of the 
> > most expensive system calls in Linux, partly because of that, and partly 
> > because it has to call all the way down into the filesystem in a way that 
> > almost no other common system call has to (99% of all filesystem calls can 
> > be handled basically at the VFS layer with generic caches - but not 
> > getdents()).
> > 
> > So if there are concurrent readdirs on the same directory, they get 
> > serialized. If there is any file creation/deletion activity in the 
> > directory, it serializes getdents(). 
> > 
> > To make matters worse, I don't think it has any read-ahead at all when you 
> > use hashed directory entries. So if you have cold-cache case, you'll read 
> > every single block totally individually, and serialized. One block at a 
> > time (I think the non-hashed case is likely also suspect, but that's a 
> > separate issue)
> > 
> > In other words, I'm not at all surprised it hits on filldir time. 
> > Especially on ext3.
> 
> At work, we had the same problem on a file server with ext3. We use rsync
> to make backups to a local IDE disk, and we noticed that getdents() took
> about the same time as Peter reports (0.2 to 2 seconds), especially in
> maildir directories. We tried many things to fix it with no result,
> including enabling dirindexes. Finally, we made a full backup, and switched
> over to XFS and the problem totally disappeared. So it seems that the
> filesystem matters a lot here when there are lots of entries in a
> directory, and that ext3 is not suitable for usages with thousands
> of entries in directories with millions of files on disk. I'm not
> certain it would be that easy to try other filesystems on kernel.org
> though :-/
> 

Yeah, slowly-growing directories will get splattered all over the disk.

Possible short-term fixes would be to just allocate up to (say) eight
blocks when we grow a directory by one block.  Or teach the
directory-growth code to use ext3 reservations.

Longer-term people are talking about things like on-disk rerservations. 
But I expect directories are being forgotten about in all of that.