From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 04/33] fs: brlock vfsmount_lock
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 04:10:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091001021042.GN6327@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1254144063.15795.3.camel@laptop>
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 03:21:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 21:56 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 04:17:51PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 04:51:45PM +1000, npiggin@suse.de wrote:
> > > > Use a brlock for the vfsmount lock.
> > >
> > > I like it, but I'd like to see how costly it becomes on heavily SMP boxen.
> > > Creation/removal of bindings as load...
> >
> > I could test that... Is there some realistic scenario I can try
> > to implement that exercises this? (failing that, I'll happily
> > do a microbenchmark).
> >
> > I was thinking it *might* be possible to do RCU... but especially
> > coming up with a scheme that avoids synchronize_rcu() in the
> > umount path is not trivial, so perhaps the simple read/write
> > annotations with brlock behind the scenes is a more reasonable step.
> >
> > I do also actually owe you some documentation with this one too,
> > which I will get around to adding.
>
> The thing that worries me is that the write-side is very heavy and the
> read sides are spinning on it, yielding rather large spin times on large
> smp boxen.
Well, that might be true. Although I'd say that huge systems that
are doing a reasonable amount of vfs operations will have much
larger spin times today due to pathological queueing on the
global locks (almost to the point of effectively being a livelock).
> It wouldn't nearly be as bad if the read sides could block..
>
> FWIW, spin_lock_nested is limited to 8 subclasses, so your current
> implementation will explode on anything larger than an 8-way.
So OK, a _mergeable_ sequence for this will basicaly look like:
1. document and add read/write lock variations to the call sites
which is just a wrapper around existing lock (no functional
change).
2. add a general brlock implementation, which is nice to lockdep
(basically could just annotate it as an rwlock and be done)
And this is where -rt could also do something more appropriate
if needed.
3. switch vfsmount lock to brlock.
Someone also was interested in using brlocks elsewhere, you'll be
unhappy to know! :) Yes I would really like to see an RCU
implementation _eventually_, but as I say, that is probably a
whole project on its own.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-01 2:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-04 6:51 [patch 00/33] my current vfs scalability patch queue npiggin
2009-09-04 6:51 ` [patch 01/33] fs: no games with DCACHE_UNHASHED npiggin
2009-09-04 6:51 ` [patch 02/33] fs: cleanup files_lock npiggin
2009-09-04 6:51 ` [patch 03/33] fs: scale files_lock npiggin
2009-09-28 13:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-28 13:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-01 2:16 ` Nick Piggin
[not found] ` <r2i3282373b1004011751j440635b3n484018db2e2bc50c@mail.gmail.com>
2010-04-02 2:24 ` [patch 1/2] fs: cleanup files_lock tim
2009-09-04 6:51 ` [patch 04/33] fs: brlock vfsmount_lock npiggin
2009-09-04 15:19 ` Jens Axboe
2009-09-07 7:39 ` Nick Piggin
2009-09-22 15:17 ` Al Viro
2009-09-27 19:56 ` Nick Piggin
2009-09-28 13:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-01 2:10 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2009-09-04 6:51 ` [patch 05/33] fs: scale mntget/mntput npiggin
2009-09-07 9:41 ` Nick Piggin
2009-09-04 6:51 ` [patch 06/33] fs: dcache scale hash npiggin
2009-09-04 6:51 ` [patch 07/33] fs: dcache scale lru npiggin
2009-09-04 6:51 ` [patch 08/33] fs: dcache scale nr_dentry npiggin
2009-09-04 14:41 ` Daniel Walker
2009-09-07 7:36 ` Nick Piggin
2009-09-04 6:51 ` [patch 09/33] fs: dcache scale dentry refcount npiggin
2009-09-06 18:01 ` Eric Paris
2009-09-07 7:44 ` Nick Piggin
2009-09-07 11:21 ` Eric Paris
2009-09-07 11:35 ` Nick Piggin
2009-09-04 6:51 ` [patch 10/33] fs: dcache scale d_unhashed npiggin
2009-09-04 6:51 ` [patch 11/33] fs: dcache scale subdirs npiggin
2010-06-17 15:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-17 16:53 ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-21 13:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-21 14:48 ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-21 14:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-22 6:02 ` john stultz
2010-06-22 6:06 ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-22 7:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-23 2:03 ` john stultz
2010-06-23 7:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-04 6:51 ` [patch 12/33] fs: scale inode alias list npiggin
2009-09-04 6:51 ` [patch 13/33] fs: use RCU / seqlock logic for reverse and multi-step operaitons npiggin
2009-09-04 6:51 ` [patch 14/33] fs: dcache remove dcache_lock npiggin
2009-09-04 6:51 ` [patch 15/33] fs: dcache reduce dput locking npiggin
2009-09-04 6:51 ` [patch 16/33] fs: dcache per-bucket dcache hash locking npiggin
2009-09-04 14:51 ` Daniel Walker
2009-09-07 7:38 ` Nick Piggin
2009-09-04 6:51 ` [patch 17/33] fs: dcache reduce dcache_inode_lock npiggin
2009-09-04 6:51 ` [patch 18/33] fs: dcache per-inode inode alias locking npiggin
2009-09-04 6:52 ` [patch 19/33] fs: icache lock s_inodes list npiggin
2009-09-04 6:52 ` [patch 20/33] fs: icache lock inode hash npiggin
2009-09-04 6:52 ` [patch 21/33] fs: icache lock i_state npiggin
2009-09-04 6:52 ` [patch 22/33] fs: icache lock i_count npiggin
2009-09-04 6:52 ` [patch 23/33] fs: icache atomic inodes_stat npiggin
2009-09-04 6:52 ` [patch 24/33] fs: icache lock lru/writeback lists npiggin
2009-09-04 6:52 ` [patch 25/33] fs: icache protect inode state npiggin
2009-09-04 6:52 ` [patch 26/33] fs: inode atomic last_ino, iunique lock npiggin
2009-09-04 6:52 ` [patch 27/33] fs: icache remove inode_lock npiggin
2009-09-04 6:52 ` [patch 28/33] fs: inode factor hash lock into functions npiggin
2009-09-04 6:52 ` [patch 29/33] Remove the global inode_hash_lock and replace it with per-hash-bucket locks. fs: inode per-bucket inode hash locks npiggin
2009-09-04 7:05 ` Nick Piggin
2009-09-04 6:52 ` [patch 30/33] fs: inode lazy lru npiggin
2009-09-04 6:52 ` [patch 31/33] fs: RCU free inodes npiggin
2009-09-04 6:52 ` [patch 32/33] fs: rcu walk for i_sb_list npiggin
2009-09-04 6:52 ` [patch 33/33] fs: improve scalability of pseudo filesystems npiggin
2009-09-04 7:05 ` [patch 00/33] my current vfs scalability patch queue Nick Piggin
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=20091001021042.GN6327@wotan.suse.de \
--to=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/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).