public inbox for linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>
Subject: Re: nfs: avoid i_lock contention in nfs_clear_invalid_mapping
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 17:37:16 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZxLVDC_C2CrWvXT7@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZxK73l2yAOcLe_jl@kernel.org>

On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 03:49:50PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 03:39:13PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Fri, 2024-10-18 at 13:03 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > Multi-threaded buffered reads to the same file exposed significant
> > > inode spinlock contention in nfs_clear_invalid_mapping().
> > > 
> > > Eliminate this spinlock contention by checking flags without locking,
> > > instead using smp_rmb and smp_load_acquire accordingly, but then take
> > > spinlock and double-check these inode flags.
> > > 
> > > Also refactor nfs_set_cache_invalid() slightly to use
> > > smp_store_release() to pair with nfs_clear_invalid_mapping()'s
> > > smp_load_acquire().
> > > 
> > > While this fix is beneficial for all multi-threaded buffered reads
> > > issued by an NFS client, this issue was identified in the context of
> > > surprisingly low LOCALIO performance with 4K multi-threaded buffered
> > > read IO.  This fix dramatically speeds up LOCALIO performance:
> > > 
> > > before: read: IOPS=1583k, BW=6182MiB/s (6482MB/s)(121GiB/20002msec)
> > > after:  read: IOPS=3046k, BW=11.6GiB/s (12.5GB/s)(232GiB/20001msec)
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 17dfeb911339 ("NFS: Fix races in nfs_revalidate_mapping")
> > > Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/nfs/inode.c | 19 ++++++++++++++-----
> > >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/inode.c b/fs/nfs/inode.c
> > > index 542c7d97b235..130d7226b12a 100644
> > > --- a/fs/nfs/inode.c
> > > +++ b/fs/nfs/inode.c
> > > @@ -205,12 +205,14 @@ void nfs_set_cache_invalid(struct inode *inode, unsigned long flags)
> > >  		nfs_fscache_invalidate(inode, 0);
> > >  	flags &= ~NFS_INO_REVAL_FORCED;
> > >  
> > > -	nfsi->cache_validity |= flags;
> > > +	if (inode->i_mapping->nrpages == 0)
> > > +		flags &= ~NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA;
> > >  
> > > -	if (inode->i_mapping->nrpages == 0) {
> > > -		nfsi->cache_validity &= ~NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA;
> > > -		nfs_ooo_clear(nfsi);
> > > -	} else if (nfsi->cache_validity & NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA) {
> > > +	/* pairs with nfs_clear_invalid_mapping()'s smp_load_acquire() */
> > > +	smp_store_release(&nfsi->cache_validity, flags);
> > > +
> > 
> > I don't know this code that well, but it used to do an |= of flags into
> > cache_validity. Now you're replacing cache_validity wholesale with
> > flags. Maybe that should do something like this?
> > 
> >     flags |= nfsi->cache_validity;
> >     smp_store_release(&nfsi->cache_validity, flags);
> 
> Ah good catch, sorry about that, will fix.
> 
> This will allow further cleanup too, will let v2 speak to that.

I just posted v2, but for completeness: I decided to leave well enough
alone and not do any further cleanup.

(my thinking was relative to nfs_ooo_clear, and possibly moving it
before the smp_store_release, so that nfsi->cache_validity only
changed once using smp_store_release.  The interlock between
nfs_set_cache_invalid and nfs_clear_invalid_mapping is focused on
NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA, which nfs_ooo_clear doesn't touch).

  reply	other threads:[~2024-10-18 21:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-10-18 17:03 [PATCH] nfs: avoid i_lock contention in nfs_clear_invalid_mapping Mike Snitzer
2024-10-18 19:39 ` Jeff Layton
2024-10-18 19:49   ` Mike Snitzer
2024-10-18 21:37     ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2024-10-30 19:51       ` Anna Schumaker
2024-10-30 20:03         ` Mike Snitzer
2024-10-30 20:08           ` Anna Schumaker
2024-10-30 20:11           ` Anna Schumaker

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=ZxLVDC_C2CrWvXT7@kernel.org \
    --to=snitzer@kernel.org \
    --cc=anna@kernel.org \
    --cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=trondmy@hammerspace.com \
    /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