Re: [PATCH 14/24] xfs: tail updates only need to occur when LSN changes

Brian Foster
2019-08-06T12:53:25Z

On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 03:33:38PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 09:28:26AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 01:53:26PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 12:17:42PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > > >
> > > > We currently wake anything waiting on the log tail to move whenever
> > > > the log item at the tail of the log is removed. Historically this
> > > > was fine behaviour because there were very few items at any given
> > > > LSN. But with delayed logging, there may be thousands of items at
> > > > any given LSN, and we can't move the tail until they are all gone.
> > > >
> > > > Hence if we are removing them in near tail-first order, we might be
> > > > waking up processes waiting on the tail LSN to change (e.g. log
> > > > space waiters) repeatedly without them being able to make progress.
> > > > This also occurs with the new sync push waiters, and can result in
> > > > thousands of spurious wakeups every second when under heavy direct
> > > > reclaim pressure.
> > > >
> > > > To fix this, check that the tail LSN has actually changed on the
> > > > AIL before triggering wakeups. This will reduce the number of
> > > > spurious wakeups when doing bulk AIL removal and make this code much
> > > > more efficient.
> > > >
> > > > XXX: occasionally get a temporary hang in xfs_ail_push_sync() with
> > > > this change - log force from log worker gets things moving again.
> > > > Only happens under extreme memory pressure - possibly push racing
> > > > with a tail update on an empty log. Needs further investigation.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > Ok, this addresses the wakeup granularity issue mentioned in the
> > > previous patch. Note that I was kind of wondering why we wouldn't base
> > > this on the l_tail_lsn update in xlog_assign_tail_lsn_locked() as
> > > opposed to the current approach.
> >
> > Because I didn't think of it? :)
> >
> > There's so much other stuff in this patch set I didn't spend a
> > lot of time thinking about other alternatives. this was a simple
> > code transformation that did what I wanted, and I went on to burning
> > brain cells on other more complex issues that needs to be solved...
> >
> > > For example, xlog_assign_tail_lsn_locked() could simply check the
> > > current min item against the current l_tail_lsn before it does the
> > > assignment and use that to trigger tail change events. If we wanted to
> > > also filter out the other wakeups (as this patch does) then we could
> > > just pass a bool pointer or something that returns whether the tail
> > > actually changed.
> >
> > Yeah, I'll have a look at this - I might rework it as additional
> > patches now the code is looking at decisions based on LSN rather
> > than if the tail log item changed...
>
> Ok, this is not worth the complexity. The wakeup code has to be able
> to tell the difference between a changed tail lsn and an empty AIL
> so that wakeups can be issued when the AIL is finally emptied.
> Unmount (xfs_ail_push_all_sync()) relies on this, and
> xlog_assign_tail_lsn_locked() hides the empty AIL from the caller
> by returning log->l_last_sync_lsn to the caller.
>

Wouldn't either case just be a wakeup from xlog_assign_tail_lsn_locked()
(which should probably be renamed if we took that approach)? It's called
when we've removed the min item from the AIL and so potentially need to
update the tail lsn.

> Hence the wakeup code still has to check for an empty AIL if the
> tail has changed if we use the return value of
> xlog_assign_tail_lsn_locked() as the tail LSN. At which point, the
> logic becomes somewhat convoluted, and it's far simpler to use
> __xfs_ail_min_lsn as it returns when the log is empty.
>
> So, nice idea, but it doesn't make the code simpler or easier to
> understand....
>

It's not that big of a deal either way. BTW on another quick look, I
think something like xfs_ail_update_tail(ailp, old_tail) is a bit more
self-documenting that xfs_ail_delete_finish(ailp, old_lsn).

Brian

> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com