linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH - resend] VFS: use synchronize_rcu_expedited() in namespace_unlock()
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:53:57 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r2h5rtmi.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181005014002.GS32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2403 bytes --]

On Fri, Oct 05 2018, Al Viro wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:27:37AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
>> 
>> The synchronize_rcu() in namespace_unlock() is called every time
>> a filesystem is unmounted.  If a great many filesystems are mounted,
>> this can cause a noticable slow-down in, for example, system shutdown.
>> 
>> The sequence:
>>   mkdir -p /tmp/Mtest/{0..5000}
>>   time for i in /tmp/Mtest/*; do mount -t tmpfs tmpfs $i ; done
>>   time umount /tmp/Mtest/*
>> 
>> on a 4-cpu VM can report 8 seconds to mount the tmpfs filesystems, and
>> 100 seconds to unmount them.
>> 
>> Boot the same VM with 1 CPU and it takes 18 seconds to mount the
>> tmpfs filesystems, but only 36 to unmount.
>> 
>> If we change the synchronize_rcu() to synchronize_rcu_expedited()
>> the umount time on a 4-cpu VM drop to 0.6 seconds
>> 
>> I think this 200-fold speed up is worth the slightly high system
>> impact of using synchronize_rcu_expedited().
>> 
>> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (from general rcu perspective)
>> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
>> ---
>> 
>> I posted this last October, then again last November (cc:ing Linus)
>> Paul is happy enough with it, but no other response.
>> I'm hoping it can get applied this time....
>
> Umm...  IIRC, the last one got sidetracked on the other thing in the series...
> <checks> that was s_anon stuff.  I can live with this one; FWIW, what kind
> of load would trigger the impact of the change?  Paul?

I think you would need a long sequence of umounts to notice anything.
What you would notice is substantially reduced wall-clock time, but
slightly increased CPU time.

The original bug report that lead to this patch was a system with "HUGE
direct automount maps (>23k at this point)".
Stopping autofs (during shutdown) took more minutes than seemed
reasonable.

I noticed it again just recently when working on a systemd issue.  If
you mount thousands of filesystems in quick succession (ClearCase can do
this), systemd processes /proc/self/mountinfo constantly and slows down
the whole process.  When I unmount my test filesystems (mount --bind
/etc /MNT/$1) it takes a similar amount of time, but now it isn't
systemd slowing things down (which is odd actually, I wonder why systemd
didn't notice..) but rather the synchronize_rcu() delays.

Thanks,
NeilBrown

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2018-10-05  2:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-26  2:26 [PATCH] VFS: use synchronize_rcu_expedited() in namespace_unlock() NeilBrown
2017-10-26 12:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-10-26 13:50   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-10-27  0:45   ` NeilBrown
2017-10-27  1:24     ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-11-27 11:27   ` Florian Weimer
2017-11-27 14:41     ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-11-28 22:17       ` NeilBrown
2018-10-05  1:27         ` [PATCH - resend] " NeilBrown
2018-10-05  1:40           ` Al Viro
2018-10-05  2:53             ` NeilBrown [this message]
2018-10-05  4:08             ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-29 23:33             ` [PATCH - resend*2] " NeilBrown
2018-11-29 23:52               ` Al Viro
2018-11-30  1:09                 ` NeilBrown
2018-11-06  3:15           ` [PATCH - resend] " NeilBrown

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=87r2h5rtmi.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name \
    --to=neilb@suse.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).