From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: "Al Viro" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Maciej Żenczykowski" <maze@google.com>
Subject: change filp_close() to use __fput_sync() ? (Was: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:05:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150831120525.GA31015@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1440856650.8932.144.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
On 08/29, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2015-08-29 at 14:49 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 08/28, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> > >
> > > In commit f341861fb0b ("task_work: add a scheduling point in
> > > task_work_run()") I fixed a latency problem adding a cond_resched()
> > > call.
> > >
> > > Later, commit ac3d0da8f329 added yet another loop to reverse a list,
> > > bringing back the latency spike :
> > >
> > > I've seen in some cases this loop taking 275 ms, if for example a
> > > process with 2,000,000 files is killed.
> > >
> > > We could add yet another cond_resched() in the reverse loop,
> >
> > Can't we do this?
>
> Well, I stated in the changelog we could. Obviously we can.
>
> Adding 275 ms of pure overhead to perform this list reversal for files
> to be closed is quite unfortunate.
Well, if the first loop takes 275 ms, then probably the next one which
actually does a lot of __fput's takes much, much more time, so perhaps
these 275 ms are not very noticable. Ignoring the latency problem.
But of course, this is not good, I agree. Please see below.
> > Fifo just looks more sane to me.
>
> Well, files are closed in a random order. These are the main user of
> this stuff.
This is the most "heavy" user. But task_works is the generic API.
> Now we also could question why we needed commit
> 4a9d4b024a3102fc083c925c242d98ac27b1c5f6 ("switch fput to task_work_add
> ") since it seems quite an overhead at task exit with 10^6 of files to
> close.
How about the patch below? I didn't try to test it yet, but since
filp_close() does ->flush() I think __fput_sync() should be safe here.
Al, what do you think?
Oleg.
--- x/fs/file_table.c
+++ x/fs/file_table.c
@@ -292,11 +292,8 @@ void fput(struct file *file)
*/
void __fput_sync(struct file *file)
{
- if (atomic_long_dec_and_test(&file->f_count)) {
- struct task_struct *task = current;
- BUG_ON(!(task->flags & PF_KTHREAD));
+ if (atomic_long_dec_and_test(&file->f_count))
__fput(file);
- }
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(fput);
--- x/fs/open.c
+++ x/fs/open.c
@@ -1074,7 +1074,7 @@ int filp_close(struct file *filp, fl_owner_t id)
dnotify_flush(filp, id);
locks_remove_posix(filp, id);
}
- fput(filp);
+ __fput_sync(filp);
return retval;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-31 12:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-29 2:42 [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Eric Dumazet
2015-08-29 3:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-08-29 9:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-08-29 12:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-31 6:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-08-31 12:51 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-29 12:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-29 13:57 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-08-29 14:11 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-08-29 17:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-08-31 5:22 ` yalin wang
2015-09-05 5:19 ` Al Viro
2015-08-31 12:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-05 5:12 ` Al Viro
2015-09-05 5:42 ` Al Viro
2015-09-05 20:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-08-31 12:05 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2015-09-05 5:35 ` Al Viro
2015-09-07 12:27 ` [PATCH?] fput: don't abuse task_work_add() too much Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-07 13:49 ` [PATCH? v2] " Oleg Nesterov
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=20150831120525.GA31015@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maze@google.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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