From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: contention on pwq->pool->lock under heavy NFS workload
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 11:28:38 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZJNrht3NlLyPn2A0@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <38FA0353-5303-4A3D-86A5-EF1E989CD497@oracle.com>
Hello,
On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 03:26:22PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> lock_stat reports that the pool->lock kernel/workqueue.c:1483 is the highest
> contended lock on my test NFS client. The issue appears to be that the three
> NFS-related workqueues, rpciod_workqueue, xprtiod_workqueue, and nfsiod all
> get placed in the same worker_pool, so they have to fight over one pool lock.
>
> I notice that ib_comp_wq is allocated with the same flags, but I don't see
> significant contention there, and a trace_printk in __queue_work shows that
> work items queued on that WQ seem to alternate between at least two different
> worker_pools.
>
> Is there a preferred way to ensure the NFS WQs get spread a little more fairly
> amongst the worker_pools?
Can you share the output of lstopo on the test machine?
The following branch has pending workqueue changes which makes unbound
workqueues finer grained by default and a lot more flexible in how they're
segmented.
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/wq.git affinity-scopes-v2
Can you please test with the brnach? If the default doesn't improve the
situation, you can set WQ_SYSFS on the affected workqueues and change their
scoping by writing to /sys/devices/virtual/WQ_NAME/affinity_scope. Please
take a look at
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/wq.git/tree/Documentation/core-api/workqueue.rst?h=affinity-scopes-v2#n350
for more details.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-21 21:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-21 15:26 contention on pwq->pool->lock under heavy NFS workload Chuck Lever III
2023-06-21 21:28 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2023-06-22 14:38 ` Chuck Lever III
2023-06-22 15:45 ` Chuck Lever III
2023-06-22 19:23 ` Tejun Heo
2023-06-22 19:39 ` Chuck Lever III
2023-06-23 14:37 ` Chuck Lever III
2023-06-24 1:44 ` Tejun Heo
2023-06-25 16:01 ` Chuck Lever III
2023-06-26 20:21 ` Tejun Heo
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=ZJNrht3NlLyPn2A0@slm.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@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