From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: ext4 development <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Dave Wysochanski <dwysocha@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC] jbd: don't wake kjournald unnecessarily
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 11:03:57 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50D0A1FD.7040203@redhat.com> (raw)
Commit d9b0193 jbd: fix fsync() tid wraparound bug
changed the logic for whether __log_start_commit() should wake up
kjournald.
After backporting this to RHEL6, I had a report of a performance regression
on a large benchmark, and it was narrowed down to the change above.
I did a little investigation of jbd behavior while running xfstest
013, which just does a large fsstress run, and found that we were
waking up kjournald more often than before; specifically,
in the case where
target == j_commit_request == journal->j_running_transaction
It seems to me that the wakeup is not needed if we already have
the right target on the commit request, so I tested with the
additional condition added in the patch below; this brought
performance back up to prior levels.
I also tested it with tid_t defined to a u8, to get frequent wraps.
If I back out the wraparound patch, it will easily provoke
the original ASSERT that prompted the prior commit. With
the commit in place and the patch below, I survived running
fsstress for 10 hours without problems even with a frequently-wrapping
tid_t.
A couple questions remain:
With a u8 tid_t, the "else" clause from commit d9b0193 fires
frequently; I really think the underlying problem is that tid_geq()
etc does not properly handle wraparounds - if, say, target is 255
and j_commit_request is 0, we don't know if j_commit_request
is 255 tids behind, or 1 tid ahead. I have to think about that
some more, unless it's obvious to someone else.
FWIW, some people have indeed seen that else clause fire upstream,
both in the case where j_commit_request is > 2^31 and the
target is 0.
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46031
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=80741
Anyway, I think this patch helps on the "don't send extra wakeups"
side of things. Does anyone see a problem with it?
If it looks ok, I'll send the same for jbd2.
Thanks,
-Eric
=============
[PATCH] jbd: don't wake kjournald unnecessarily
Don't send an extra wakeup to kjournald in the case where we
already have the proper target in j_commit_request, i.e. that
commit has already been requested for commit.
commit d9b0193 "jbd: fix fsync() tid wraparound bug" changed
the logic leading to a wakeup, but it caused some extra wakeups
which were found to lead to a measurable performance regression.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
---
diff --git a/fs/jbd/journal.c b/fs/jbd/journal.c
index a286233..81cc7ea 100644
--- a/fs/jbd/journal.c
+++ b/fs/jbd/journal.c
@@ -446,7 +446,8 @@ int __log_start_commit(journal_t *journal, tid_t target)
* currently running transaction (if it exists). Otherwise,
* the target tid must be an old one.
*/
- if (journal->j_running_transaction &&
+ if (journal->j_commit_request != target &&
+ journal->j_running_transaction &&
journal->j_running_transaction->t_tid == target) {
/*
* We want a new commit: OK, mark the request and wakeup the
next reply other threads:[~2012-12-18 17:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-18 17:03 Eric Sandeen [this message]
2012-12-19 1:27 ` [PATCH RFC] jbd: don't wake kjournald unnecessarily Jan Kara
2012-12-19 2:05 ` Jan Kara
2012-12-19 3:08 ` Eric Sandeen
2012-12-19 8:13 ` Jan Kara
2012-12-19 15:37 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-12-19 17:14 ` Jan Kara
2012-12-19 20:27 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-12-19 21:19 ` Eric Sandeen
2012-12-21 17:01 ` Eric Sandeen
2012-12-21 17:46 ` Theodore Ts'o
2013-01-08 19:19 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-01-11 16:42 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-01-11 19:03 ` Jan Kara
2013-01-11 19:06 ` Eric Sandeen
2012-12-19 15:46 ` Eric Sandeen
2012-12-19 17:11 ` Jan Kara
2012-12-19 2:36 ` Eric Sandeen
2012-12-19 2:59 ` [PATCH] jbd2: " Eric Sandeen
2012-12-19 8:09 ` Jan Kara
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=50D0A1FD.7040203@redhat.com \
--to=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=dwysocha@redhat.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).