Re: aio/dio write vs. file_update_time

[Avi Kivity <avi@scylladb.com>]

On 01/23/2018 06:31 PM, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 06:10:51PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> I'm seeing the following lock contention in io_submit() (unfortunately,
>> older kernel again)
>>
>>
>>   0xffffffff816ab231 : __schedule+0x531/0x9b0 [kernel]
>>   0xffffffff816ab6d9 : schedule+0x29/0x70 [kernel]
>>   0xffffffff816acfc5 : rwsem_down_write_failed+0x225/0x3a0 [kernel]
>>   0xffffffff81333ca7 : call_rwsem_down_write_failed+0x17/0x30 [kernel]
>>   0xffff8819bc3f3bf8 : 0xffff8819bc3f3bf8
>>   0xffffffff816aa8bd : down_write+0x2d/0x3d [kernel]
>>   0xffffffffc00ca1d1 : xfs_ilock+0xc1/0x120 [xfs]
>>   0xffffffffc00c7c8d : xfs_vn_update_time+0xcd/0x150 [xfs]
>>   0xffffffff8121eda5 : update_time+0x25/0xd0 [kernel]
>>   0xffffffff8121eef0 : file_update_time+0xa0/0xf0 [kernel]
>>   0xffffffffc00be3a5 : xfs_file_aio_write_checks+0x185/0x1f0 [xfs]
>>   0xffffffffc00be6c9 : xfs_file_dio_aio_write+0xd9/0x390 [xfs]
>>   0xffffffffc00bed42 : xfs_file_aio_write+0x102/0x1b0 [xfs]
>>   0xffffffffc00bec40 : xfs_file_aio_write+0x0/0x1b0 [xfs]
>>   0xffffffff81255ff8 : do_io_submit+0x3b8/0x870 [kernel]
>>
>>
>> There is only one thread issuing those writes, and nobody is reading the
>> file. Who could possibly be contending on this lock?
>>
> That looks like XFS_ILOCK_EXCL, which is a low level lock and thus not
> necessarily restricted to user-driven operations. One possible example
> of a background user is xfsaild, which acquires XFS_ILOCK_SHARED (and
> thus locks out exclusive waiters) via xfs_inode_item_push() in order to
> flush the dirty inode to disk (i.e., metadata writeback).
>
> I'm not exactly sure that's what is going on in your particular case,
> but I think tracepoints are your friend here. ;) E.g., 'trace-cmd record
> -e xfs:xfs_ilock' for the ilock, perhaps others for more context if
> necessary..

Here's what trace-cmd reported. I'm tracing xfs_ilock, xfs_iunlock, and 
sched_switch:

       syscall-14-12006 [007] 108264.972883: xfs_ilock: dev 9:0 ino 
0x10008c9a flags ILOCK_SHARED caller xfs_file_fsync
<snip>
       reactor-14-11979 [007] 108264.973292: xfs_iunlock: dev 9:0 ino 
0xa04d64c1 flags IOLOCK_SHARED caller xfs_file_dio_aio_read
       reactor-14-11979 [007] 108264.973293: xfs_ilock: dev 9:0 ino 
0x10008c9a flags IOLOCK_SHARED caller xfs_file_dio_aio_write
       reactor-14-11979 [007] 108264.973296: xfs_ilock: dev 9:0 ino 
0x10008c9a flags ILOCK_EXCL caller xfs_vn_update_time
       reactor-14-11979 [007] 108264.973300: sched_switch: 
reactor-14:11979 [120] D ==> kworker/7:1H:1350 [100]
<snip>
       syscall-14-12006 [007] 108265.015795: xfs_iunlock: dev 9:0 ino 
0x10008c9a flags ILOCK_SHARED caller xfs_file_fsync


Is IOLOCK_SHARED mutually exclusive with ILOCK_EXCL? I'm guessing not.


Looks like fsync clashed with io_submit() here, which wasn't supposed to 
happen in my code, they ought to be mutually exclusive.


>> I'm seeing 200ms stalls, so my guess is a log flush is involved.
>>
>>
>> Is this lock contention covered by RWF_NOWAIT?
>>
> I don't think so. It looked to me that RWF_NOWAIT basically just skips
> allocations..
>
> Brian
>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html