public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/30] xfs: remove IO submission from xfs_reclaim_inode()
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 12:25:44 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200605162544.GB23747@bfoster> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200604225342.GT2040@dread.disaster.area>

On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 08:53:42AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 02:08:14PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 05:45:54PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > > 
> > > We no longer need to issue IO from shrinker based inode reclaim to
> > > prevent spurious OOM killer invocation. This leaves only the global
> > > filesystem management operations such as unmount needing to
> > > writeback dirty inodes and reclaim them.
> > > 
> > > Instead of using the reclaim pass to write dirty inodes before
> > > reclaiming them, use the AIL to push all the dirty inodes before we
> > > try to reclaim them. This allows us to remove all the conditional
> > > SYNC_WAIT locking and the writeback code from xfs_reclaim_inode()
> > > and greatly simplify the checks we need to do to reclaim an inode.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c | 117 ++++++++++++--------------------------------
> > >  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 86 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
> > > index a6780942034fc..74032316ce5cc 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
> > ...
> > > @@ -1341,9 +1288,8 @@ xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag(
> > >  			for (i = 0; i < nr_found; i++) {
> > >  				if (!batch[i])
> > >  					continue;
> > > -				error = xfs_reclaim_inode(batch[i], pag, flags);
> > > -				if (error && last_error != -EFSCORRUPTED)
> > > -					last_error = error;
> > > +				if (!xfs_reclaim_inode(batch[i], pag, flags))
> > > +					skipped++;
> > 
> > Just a note that I find it a little bit of a landmine that skipped is
> > bumped on trylock failure of the perag reclaim lock when the
> > xfs_reclaim_inodes() caller can now spin on that.
> 
> Intentional, because without bumping skipped on perag reclaim lock
> failure we can silently skip entire AGs when doing blocking reclaim
> and xfs_reclaim_inodes() fails to reclaim all inodes in the cache.
> 
> It's only necessary to work around fatal bugs this patch exposes
> for the brief period that this infrastructure is being torn down by
> this patchset....
> 
> > It doesn't appear to
> > be an issue with current users, though (xfs_reclaim_workers() passes
> > SYNC_TRYLOCK but not SYNC_WAIT).
> 
> xfs_reclaim_workers() is optimisitic, background reclaim, so we
> just don't care if it skips over things. We just don't want it to
> block.
> 

Sure, I'm just warning that this puts in place infrastructure that is
easily possible to misuse in a way that could lead to livelocks. If it's
torn done by the end of the series then it's not a problem. If not, we
should probably consider hardening it somehow or another after the
series so we don't leave ourselves a landmine to step on.

Brian

> > >  			}
> > >  
> > >  			*nr_to_scan -= XFS_LOOKUP_BATCH;
> > ...
> > > @@ -1380,8 +1314,18 @@ xfs_reclaim_inodes(
> > >  	int		mode)
> > >  {
> > >  	int		nr_to_scan = INT_MAX;
> > > +	int		skipped;
> > >  
> > > -	return xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag(mp, mode, &nr_to_scan);
> > > +	xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag(mp, mode, &nr_to_scan);
> > > +	if (!(mode & SYNC_WAIT))
> > > +		return 0;
> > > +
> > 
> > Any reason we fall into the loop below if SYNC_WAIT was passed but the
> > above xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag() call would have returned 0?
> 
> Same thing again. It's temporary to maintain correctness while one
> thing at time is removed from the reclaim code. This code goes away
> in the same patch that makes SYNC_WAIT go away.
> 
> > Looks reasonable other than that inefficiency:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-05 16:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 82+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-04  7:45 [PATCH 00/30] xfs: rework inode flushing to make inode reclaim fully asynchronous Dave Chinner
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 01/30] xfs: Don't allow logging of XFS_ISTALE inodes Dave Chinner
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 02/30] xfs: remove logged flag from inode log item Dave Chinner
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 03/30] xfs: add an inode item lock Dave Chinner
2020-06-09 13:13   ` Brian Foster
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 04/30] xfs: mark inode buffers in cache Dave Chinner
2020-06-04 14:04   ` Brian Foster
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 05/30] xfs: mark dquot " Dave Chinner
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 06/30] xfs: mark log recovery buffers for completion Dave Chinner
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 07/30] xfs: call xfs_buf_iodone directly Dave Chinner
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 08/30] xfs: clean up whacky buffer log item list reinit Dave Chinner
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 09/30] xfs: make inode IO completion buffer centric Dave Chinner
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 10/30] xfs: use direct calls for dquot IO completion Dave Chinner
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 11/30] xfs: clean up the buffer iodone callback functions Dave Chinner
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 12/30] xfs: get rid of log item callbacks Dave Chinner
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 13/30] xfs: handle buffer log item IO errors directly Dave Chinner
2020-06-04 14:05   ` Brian Foster
2020-06-05  0:59     ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-05  1:32   ` [PATCH 13/30 V2] " Dave Chinner
2020-06-05 16:24     ` Brian Foster
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 14/30] xfs: unwind log item error flagging Dave Chinner
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 15/30] xfs: move xfs_clear_li_failed out of xfs_ail_delete_one() Dave Chinner
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 16/30] xfs: pin inode backing buffer to the inode log item Dave Chinner
2020-06-04 14:05   ` Brian Foster
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 17/30] xfs: make inode reclaim almost non-blocking Dave Chinner
2020-06-04 18:06   ` Brian Foster
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 18/30] xfs: remove IO submission from xfs_reclaim_inode() Dave Chinner
2020-06-04 18:08   ` Brian Foster
2020-06-04 22:53     ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-05 16:25       ` Brian Foster [this message]
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 19/30] xfs: allow multiple reclaimers per AG Dave Chinner
2020-06-05 16:26   ` Brian Foster
2020-06-05 21:07     ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-08 16:44       ` Brian Foster
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 20/30] xfs: don't block inode reclaim on the ILOCK Dave Chinner
2020-06-05 16:26   ` Brian Foster
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 21/30] xfs: remove SYNC_TRYLOCK from inode reclaim Dave Chinner
2020-06-05 16:26   ` Brian Foster
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 22/30] xfs: remove SYNC_WAIT from xfs_reclaim_inodes() Dave Chinner
2020-06-05 16:26   ` Brian Foster
2020-06-05 21:09     ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-04  7:45 ` [PATCH 23/30] xfs: clean up inode reclaim comments Dave Chinner
2020-06-05 16:26   ` Brian Foster
2020-06-04  7:46 ` [PATCH 24/30] xfs: rework stale inodes in xfs_ifree_cluster Dave Chinner
2020-06-05 18:27   ` Brian Foster
2020-06-05 21:32     ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-08 16:44       ` Brian Foster
2020-06-04  7:46 ` [PATCH 25/30] xfs: attach inodes to the cluster buffer when dirtied Dave Chinner
2020-06-08 16:45   ` Brian Foster
2020-06-08 21:05     ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-04  7:46 ` [PATCH 26/30] xfs: xfs_iflush() is no longer necessary Dave Chinner
2020-06-08 16:45   ` Brian Foster
2020-06-08 21:37     ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-08 22:26   ` [PATCH 26/30 V2] " Dave Chinner
2020-06-09 13:11     ` Brian Foster
2020-06-04  7:46 ` [PATCH 27/30] xfs: rename xfs_iflush_int() Dave Chinner
2020-06-08 17:37   ` Brian Foster
2020-06-04  7:46 ` [PATCH 28/30] xfs: rework xfs_iflush_cluster() dirty inode iteration Dave Chinner
2020-06-09 13:11   ` Brian Foster
2020-06-09 22:01     ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-10 13:06       ` Brian Foster
2020-06-10 23:40         ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-11 13:56           ` Brian Foster
2020-06-15  1:01             ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-15 14:21               ` Brian Foster
2020-06-16 14:41                 ` Brian Foster
2020-06-11  1:56   ` [PATCH 28/30 V2] " Dave Chinner
2020-06-04  7:46 ` [PATCH 29/30] xfs: factor xfs_iflush_done Dave Chinner
2020-06-09 13:12   ` Brian Foster
2020-06-09 22:14     ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-10 13:08       ` Brian Foster
2020-06-11  0:16         ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-11 14:07           ` Brian Foster
2020-06-15  1:49             ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-15  5:20               ` Amir Goldstein
2020-06-15 14:31               ` Brian Foster
2020-06-11  1:58   ` [PATCH 29/30 V2] " Dave Chinner
2020-06-04  7:46 ` [PATCH 30/30] xfs: remove xfs_inobp_check() Dave Chinner
2020-06-09 13:12   ` Brian Foster
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-06-22  8:15 [PATCH 00/30] xfs: rework inode flushing to make inode reclaim fully asynchronous Dave Chinner
2020-06-22  8:15 ` [PATCH 18/30] xfs: remove IO submission from xfs_reclaim_inode() Dave Chinner
2020-06-01 21:42 [PATCH 00/30] xfs: rework inode flushing to make inode reclaim fully asynchronous Dave Chinner
2020-06-01 21:42 ` [PATCH 18/30] xfs: remove IO submission from xfs_reclaim_inode() Dave Chinner
2020-06-02 22:36   ` Darrick J. Wong

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=20200605162544.GB23747@bfoster \
    --to=bfoster@redhat.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=linux-xfs@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