Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency improvement

Ian Kent
2021-05-14T01:02:23Z

On Thu, 2021-05-13 at 17:19 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 09:50:19PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-05-12 at 08:21 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 08:38:35AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > There have been a few instances of contention on the
> > > > kernfs_mutex
> > > > during
> > > > path walks, a case on very large IBM systems seen by myself, a
> > > > report by
> > > > Brice Goglin and followed up by Fox Chen, and I've since seen a
> > > > couple
> > > > of other reports by CoreOS users.
> > > >
> > > > The common thread is a large number of kernfs path walks
> > > > leading to
> > > > slowness of path walks due to kernfs_mutex contention.
> > > >
> > > > The problem being that changes to the VFS over some time have
> > > > increased
> > > > it's concurrency capabilities to an extent that kernfs's use of
> > > > a
> > > > mutex
> > > > is no longer appropriate. There's also an issue of walks for
> > > > non-
> > > > existent
> > > > paths causing contention if there are quite a few of them which
> > > > is
> > > > a less
> > > > common problem.
> > > >
> > > > This patch series is relatively straight forward.
> > > >
> > > > All it does is add the ability to take advantage of VFS
> > > > negative
> > > > dentry
> > > > caching to avoid needless dentry alloc/free cycles for lookups
> > > > of
> > > > paths
> > > > that don't exit and change the kernfs_mutex to a read/write
> > > > semaphore.
> > > >
> > > > The patch that tried to stay in VFS rcu-walk mode during path
> > > > walks
> > > > has
> > > > been dropped for two reasons. First, it doesn't actually give
> > > > very
> > > > much
> > > > improvement and, second, if there's a place where mistakes
> > > > could go
> > > > unnoticed it would be in that path. This makes the patch series
> > > > simpler
> > > > to review and reduces the likelihood of problems going
> > > > unnoticed
> > > > and
> > > > popping up later.
> > > >
> > > > The patch to use a revision to identify if a directory has
> > > > changed
> > > > has
> > > > also been dropped. If the directory has changed the dentry
> > > > revision
> > > > needs to be updated to avoid subsequent rb tree searches and
> > > > after
> > > > changing to use a read/write semaphore the update also requires
> > > > a
> > > > lock.
> > > > But the d_lock is the only lock available at this point which
> > > > might
> > > > itself be contended.
> > > >
> > > > Changes since v3:
> > > > - remove unneeded indirection when referencing the super block.
> > > > - check if inode attribute update is actually needed.
> > > >
> > > > Changes since v2:
> > > > - actually fix the inode attribute update locking.
> > > > - drop the patch that tried to stay in rcu-walk mode.
> > > > - drop the use a revision to identify if a directory has
> > > > changed
> > > > patch.
> > > >
> > > > Changes since v1:
> > > > - fix locking in .permission() and .getattr() by re-factoring
> > > > the
> > > > attribute
> > > >   handling code.
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Ian Kent (5):
> > > >       kernfs: move revalidate to be near lookup
> > > >       kernfs: use VFS negative dentry caching
> > > >       kernfs: switch kernfs to use an rwsem
> > > >       kernfs: use i_lock to protect concurrent inode updates
> > > >       kernfs: add kernfs_need_inode_refresh()
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  fs/kernfs/dir.c             | 170 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > > ----
> > > > ----
> > > >  fs/kernfs/file.c            |   4 +-
> > > >  fs/kernfs/inode.c           |  45 ++++++++--
> > > >  fs/kernfs/kernfs-internal.h |   5 +-
> > > >  fs/kernfs/mount.c           |  12 +--
> > > >  fs/kernfs/symlink.c         |   4 +-
> > > >  include/linux/kernfs.h      |   2 +-
> > > >  7 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 95 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ian
> > > >
> > >
> > > Any benchmark numbers that you ran that are better/worse with
> > > this
> > > patch
> > > series?  That woul dbe good to know, otherwise you aren't
> > > changing
> > > functionality here, so why would we take these changes?  :)
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > I'm sorry, I don't have a benchmark.
> >
> > My continued work on this has been driven by the report from
> > Brice Goglin and Fox Chen, and also because I've seen a couple
> > of other reports of kernfs_mutex contention that is resolved
> > by the series.
> >
> > Unfortunately the two reports I've seen fairly recently are on
> > kernels that are about as far away from the upstream kernel
> > as you can get so probably aren't useful in making my case.
> >
> > The report I've worked on most recently is on CoreOS/Kunbernetes
> > (based on RHEL-8.3) where the machine load goes to around 870
> > after loading what they call an OpenShift performance profile.
> >
> > I looked at some sysreq dumps and they have a seemingly endless
> > number of processes waiting on the kernfs_mutex.
> >
> > I tried to look at the Kubernetes source but it's written in
> > go so there would need to be a lot of time spent to work out
> > what's going on, I'm trying to find someone to help with that.
> >
> > All I can say from looking at the Kubernetes source is it has
> > quite a few sysfs paths in it so I assume it uses sysfs fairly
> > heavily.
> >
> > The other problem I saw was also on CoreOS/Kunernetes.
> > A vmcore analysis showed kernfs_mutex contention but with a
> > different set of processes and not as significant as the former
> > problem.
> >
> > So, even though this isn't against the current upstream, there
> > isn't much difference in the kernfs/sysfs source between those
> > two kernels and given the results of Brice and Fox I fear I'll
> > be seeing more of this as time goes by.
> >
> > I'm fairly confident that the user space applications aren't
> > optimal (although you may have stronger words for it than that)
> > I was hoping you would agree that it's sensible for the kernel
> > to protect itself to the extent that it can provided the change
> > is straight forward enough.
> >
> > I have tried to make the patches as simple as possible without
> > loosing much of the improvement to minimize any potential ongoing
> > maintenance burden.
> >
> > So, I'm sorry I can't offer you more incentive to consider the
> > series, but I remain hopeful you will.
>
> At the very least, if you could test the series on those "older"
> systems
> and say "booting went from X seconds to Y seconds!".

The last test I did was done on the system showing high load and
it went from around 870 to around 3. It completely resolved the
reported problem.

I need to have the current patches re-tested and that can take a
while and I need to look at Fox's results results, I'm thinking
the additional patch in v4 is probably not needed.

Ian