linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	hare@suse.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@benyossef.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: Avoid IPI storm due to bh LRU invalidation
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:47:32 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120206164732.GH6890@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F2FF4EC.1000104@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On Mon 06-02-12 21:12:36, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 07:25 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> 
> > When discovery of lots of disks happen in parallel, we call
> > invalidate_bh_lrus() once for each disk from partitioning code resulting in a
> > storm of IPIs and causing a softlockup detection to fire (it takes several
> > *minutes* for a machine to execute all the invalidate_bh_lrus() calls).
> > 
> > Fix the issue by allowing only single invalidation to run using a mutex and let
> > waiters for mutex figure out whether someone invalidated LRUs for them while
> > they were waiting.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > ---
> >  fs/buffer.c |   23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> >   I feel this is slightly hacky approach but it works. If someone has better
> > idea, please speak up.
> > 
> 
> 
> Something related that you might be interested in:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/5/109
> 
> (This is part of Gilad's patchset that tries to reduce cross-CPU IPI
> interference.)
  Thanks for the pointer. I didn't know about it. As Hannes wrote, this
need not be enough for our use case as there might indeed be some bhs in
the LRU. But I'd be interested how well the patchset works anyway. Maybe it
would be enough because after all when we invalidate LRUs subsequent
callers will see them empty and not issue IPI? Hannes, can you give a try
to the patches?

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-02-06 16:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-02-06 13:55 [PATCH] vfs: Avoid IPI storm due to bh LRU invalidation Jan Kara
2012-02-06 15:42 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-02-06 15:51   ` Hannes Reinecke
2012-02-06 16:47   ` Jan Kara [this message]
2012-02-06 21:17     ` Andrew Morton
2012-02-06 22:25       ` Jan Kara
2012-02-07 16:25         ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2012-02-07 18:29           ` Jan Kara
2012-02-08  7:09             ` Gilad Ben-Yossef

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=20120206164732.GH6890@quack.suse.cz \
    --to=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=gilad@benyossef.com \
    --cc=hare@suse.de \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --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).