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 --]
next prev parent 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).