public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
To: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: restrict allocate worker to x86_64
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:37:23 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120924173723.GH1140@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <505B546A.6070105@sgi.com>

Hey,

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:37:46PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 09/19/12 16:54, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:31:34AM -0500, tinguely@sgi.com wrote:
> >>Restrict the allocation worker to X86_64 machines. This will improve
> >>performance on non-X86-64 machines and avoid the AGF buffer hang.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Mark Tinguely<tinguely@sgi.com>
> >
> >NACK.
> >
> >The stack overflow problems that this works around are not limited
> >to x86-64. In the past we've seen overflows on i686 (even with 8k
> >stacks), s390 and other platforms, so it's not an isolated issue.
> >
> >It either works or it doesn't - let's not start down the rathole of
> >having different code paths and behaviours for different platforms.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Dave.
> 
> Well, I was expecting a 4 letter word from Dave on this patch and
> "NACK" was surprisingly mild.
> 
> When the allocation worker was placed into XFS, even Christoph
> wanted a kernel configure switch to be able turn it off.
> 
> Dave has already placed a switch in the code that turns it off for
> over half of the direct callers xfs_alloc_vextent() because a
> performance issue.
> 
> We are just finding places where it causes serious issues.
> 
> This is worker is an "necessary evil" (I think those were
> Christoph's review comment). We should limit the evil to where it is
> necessary.

I tend to agree that it is undesireble to have platform specific behaviors in
XFS.  Dave has a good point.  Mark and Christoph also have valid points.

This is a platform specific problem so it's reasonable that the solution can be
platform specific too.  If the list of platforms which are broken by having so
little stack available in the kernel is larger than we'd like... well that's
unfortunate.  But it's not something we're the cause of, and it speaks to how
important it is to fix the more general problem.

We shouldn't penalize those who are using platforms which are not affected by
this problem for the limitations of the other platforms.  OTOH, if we have
multiple behaviors our testing becomes more difficult.  Nobody wins.

I think it is desireable to be able to turn this off so that users can choose
how they prefer to lose, and so that this hack continues to be easily removable
if the time ever comes when we can do so.

-Ben

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  reply	other threads:[~2012-09-24 17:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-09-19 16:31 [PATCH 0/3] xfs: allocation worker causes freelist buffer lock hang tinguely
2012-09-19 16:31 ` [PATCH 1/3] xfs: restrict allocate worker to x86_64 tinguely
2012-09-19 21:54   ` Dave Chinner
2012-09-20 17:37     ` Mark Tinguely
2012-09-24 17:37       ` Ben Myers [this message]
2012-09-25  0:14         ` Dave Chinner
2012-09-19 16:31 ` [PATCH 2/3] xfs: move allocate worker tinguely
2012-09-19 16:31 ` [PATCH 3/3] xfs: zero allocation_args on the kernel stack tinguely
2012-09-19 23:41   ` Dave Chinner
2012-09-20 18:16   ` [PATCH 3/3 v2] " Mark Tinguely
2012-09-25 20:20     ` Ben Myers
2012-10-18 22:52     ` Ben Myers
2012-09-19 23:34 ` [PATCH 0/3] xfs: allocation worker causes freelist buffer lock hang Dave Chinner
2012-09-20 13:49   ` Mark Tinguely
2012-09-24 13:25   ` Dave Chinner
2012-09-24 17:11 ` Ben Myers
2012-09-24 18:09   ` Mark Tinguely
2012-09-25  0:56     ` Dave Chinner
2012-09-25 15:14       ` Mark Tinguely
2012-09-25 22:01         ` Dave Chinner
2012-09-26 14:14           ` Mark Tinguely
2012-09-26 23:41             ` Dave Chinner
2012-09-27 20:10               ` Mark Tinguely
2012-09-28  3:08         ` Dave Chinner
2012-10-01 22:10           ` [PATCH 0/3] xfs: allocation worker causes freelist buffer lock Mark Tinguely
2012-10-01 23:10             ` Dave Chinner
2012-09-27 22:48     ` [PATCH 0/3] xfs: allocation worker causes freelist buffer lock hang Ben Myers
2012-09-27 23:17       ` Mark Tinguely
2012-09-27 23:27         ` Mark Tinguely

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=20120924173723.GH1140@sgi.com \
    --to=bpm@sgi.com \
    --cc=tinguely@sgi.com \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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