Move AIL pushing into a separate thread
RFC PATCH 1/1 Move AIL pushing into a separate thread
When many hundreds to thousands of threads all try to do simultaneous transactions and the log is in a tail-pushing situation (i.e. full), we can get multiple threads walking the AIL list and contending on the AIL lock.
Recently wevve had two cases of machines basically locking up because most of the CPUs in the system are trying to obtain the AIL lock. The first was an 8p machine with ~2,500 kernel threads trying to do transactions, and the latest is a 2048p altix closing a file per MPI rank in a synchronised fashion resulting in > 400 processes all trying to walk and push the AIL at the same time.
The AIL push is, in effect, a simple I/O dispatch algorithm complicated by the ordering constraints placed on it by the transaction subsystem. It really does not need multiple threads to push on it - even when only a single CPU is pushing the AIL, it can push the I/O out far faster that pretty much any disk subsystem can handle.
So, to avoid contention problems stemming from multiple list walkers, move the list walk off into another thread and simply provide a "target" to push to. When a thread requires a push, it sets the target and wakes the push thread, then goes to sleep waiting for the required amount of space to become available in the log.
This mechanism should also be a lot fairer under heavy load as the waiters will queue in arrival order, rather than queuing in "who completed a push first" order.
Also, by moving the pushing to a separate thread we can do more effectively overload detection and prevention as we can keep context from loop iteration to loop iteration. That is, we can push only part of the list each loop and not have to loop back to the start of the list every time we run. This should also help by reducing the number of items we try to lock and/or push items that we cannot move.
Note that this patch is not intended to solve the inefficiencies in the AIL structure and the associated issues with extremely large list contents. That needs to be addresses separately; parallel access would cause problems to any new structure as well, so I'm only aiming to isolate the structure from unbounded parallelism here.
--- fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c | 60 +++++++++++ fs/xfs/xfs_log.c | 12 ++ fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c | 6 - fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h | 10 + fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h | 1 fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c | 231 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- fs/xfs/xfs_trans_priv.h | 8 + fs/xfs/xfsidbg.c | 12 +- 8 files changed, 247 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-)
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c +60 -0
@@ -51,6 +51,7 @@#include "xfs_vfsops.h" #include "xfs_version.h" #include "xfs_log_priv.h" +#include "xfs_trans_priv.h" #include <linux/namei.h> #include <linux/init.h>
@@ -765,6 +766,65 @@ xfs_blkdev_issue_flush(blkdev_issue_flush (buftarg->bt_bdev,NULL ); } +/* +* XFS AIL push thread support +*/ +void +xfsaild_wakeup ( +xfs_mount_t *mp, +xfs_lsn_t threshold_lsn) +{ + +if (XFS_LSN_CMP (threshold_lsn, mp->m_ail.xa_target) >0 ) { + mp->m_ail.xa_target = threshold_lsn; +wake_up_process (mp->m_ail.xa_task); + } +} + +int +xfsaild ( +void *data) +{ +xfs_mount_t *mp = (xfs_mount_t *)data; +xfs_lsn_t last_pushed_lsn =0 ; +long tout =0 ; + +while (!kthread_should_stop ()) { +if (tout) +schedule_timeout_interruptible (msecs_to_jiffies (tout)); + +/* swsusp */ +try_to_freeze (); + +/* we're either starting or stopping if there is no log */ +if (!mp->m_log) +continue ; + + tout =xfsaild_push (mp, &last_pushed_lsn); + } + +return 0 ; +}/* xfsaild */ + +void +xfsaild_start ( +xfs_mount_t *mp) +{ + mp->m_ail.xa_target =0 ; + mp->m_ail.xa_task =kthread_run (xfsaild, mp,"xfsaild" ); +ASSERT (!IS_ERR (mp->m_ail.xa_task)); +/* XXX: should return error but nowhere to do it */ +} + +void +xfsaild_stop ( +xfs_mount_t *mp) +{ +kthread_stop (mp->m_ail.xa_task); +} + + + STATIC struct inode *xfs_fs_alloc_inode (struct super_block *sb)
fs/xfs/xfs_log.c +11 -1
@@ -515,6 +515,12 @@ xfs_log_mount(xfs_mount_t *mp, mp->m_log =xlog_alloc_log (mp, log_target, blk_offset, num_bblks);/* +* Initialize the AIL now we have a log. +*/ +spin_lock_init (&mp->m_ail_lock); +xfs_trans_ail_init (mp); + +/* * skip log recovery on a norecovery mount. pretend it all * just worked. */
@@ -530,7 +536,7 @@ xfs_log_mount(xfs_mount_t *mp, mp->m_flags |=XFS_MOUNT_RDONLY ;if (error) {cmn_err (CE_WARN ,"XFS: log mount/recovery failed: error %d" , error); -xlog_dealloc_log (mp->m_log); +xfs_log_unmount_dealloc (mp);return error; } }
@@ -722,10 +728,14 @@ xfs_log_unmount_write(xfs_mount_t *mp)/* * Deallocate log structures for unmount/relocation. +* +* We need to stop the aild from running before we destroy +* and deallocate the log as the aild references the log. */ void xfs_log_unmount_dealloc (xfs_mount_t *mp) { +xfs_trans_ail_destroy (mp);xlog_dealloc_log (mp->m_log); }
fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c +0 -6
@@ -137,15 +137,9 @@ xfs_mount_init(void) mp->m_flags |=XFS_MOUNT_NO_PERCPU_SB ; } -spin_lock_init (&mp->m_ail_lock);spin_lock_init (&mp->m_sb_lock);mutex_init (&mp->m_ilock);mutex_init (&mp->m_growlock); -/* -* Initialize the AIL. -*/ -xfs_trans_ail_init (mp); -atomic_set (&mp->m_active_trans,0 );return mp;
fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h +8 -2
@@ -219,12 +219,18 @@ extern void xfs_icsb_sync_counters_flags#define xfs_icsb_sync_counters_flags (mp, flags) do { } while (0)#endif +typedef struct xfs_ail { +xfs_ail_entry_t xa_ail; +uint xa_gen; +struct task_struct *xa_task; +xfs_lsn_t xa_target; +}xfs_ail_t ; + typedef struct xfs_mount { struct super_block *m_super; xfs_tid_t m_tid; /* next unused tid for fs */ spinlock_t m_ail_lock; /* fs AIL mutex */ - xfs_ail_entry_t m_ail; /* fs active log item list */ - uint m_ail_gen; /* fs AIL generation count */ + xfs_ail_t m_ail; /* fs active log item list */ xfs_sb_t m_sb; /* copy of fs superblock */ spinlock_t m_sb_lock; /* sb counter lock */ struct xfs_buf *m_sb_bp; /* buffer for superblock */
fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h +1 -0
@@ -993,6 +993,7 @@ int _xfs_trans_commit(xfs_trans_t *,#define xfs_trans_commit (tp, flags) _xfs_trans_commit(tp, flags, NULL)void xfs_trans_cancel (xfs_trans_t *,int );void xfs_trans_ail_init (struct xfs_mount *); +void xfs_trans_ail_destroy (struct xfs_mount *);xfs_lsn_t xfs_trans_push_ail (struct xfs_mount *,xfs_lsn_t );xfs_lsn_t xfs_trans_tail_ail (struct xfs_mount *); void xfs_trans_unlocked_item(struct xfs_mount *,
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +153 -78
363 lines not on this page · raw message
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_priv.h +8 -0
@@ -57,4 +57,12 @@ struct xfs_log_item *xfs_trans_next_ail( struct xfs_log_item *, int *, int *); +/* +* AIL push thread support +*/ +long xfsaild_push (struct xfs_mount *,xfs_lsn_t *); +void xfsaild_wakeup (struct xfs_mount *,xfs_lsn_t ); +void xfsaild_start (struct xfs_mount *); +void xfsaild_stop (struct xfs_mount *); +#endif /* __XFS_TRANS_PRIV_H__ */
fs/xfs/xfsidbg.c +6 -6
@@ -6220,13 +6220,13 @@ xfsidbg_xaildump(xfs_mount_t *mp) };int count; -if ((mp->m_ail.ail_forw ==NULL ) || - (mp->m_ail.ail_forw == (xfs_log_item_t *)&mp->m_ail)) { +if ((mp->m_ail.xa_ail.ail_forw ==NULL ) || + (mp->m_ail.xa_ail.ail_forw == (xfs_log_item_t *)&mp->m_ail.xa_ail)) {kdb_printf ("AIL is empty\n" );return ; }kdb_printf ("AIL for mp 0x%p, oldest first\n" , mp); - lip = (xfs_log_item_t *)mp->m_ail.ail_forw; + lip = (xfs_log_item_t *)mp->m_ail.xa_ail.ail_forw;for (count =0 ; lip; count++) {kdb_printf ("[%d] type %s " , count,xfsidbg_item_type_str (lip));printflags ((uint)(lip->li_flags), li_flags,"flags:" );
@@ -6255,7 +6255,7 @@ xfsidbg_xaildump(xfs_mount_t *mp)break ; } -if (lip->li_ail.ail_forw == (xfs_log_item_t *)&mp->m_ail) { +if (lip->li_ail.ail_forw == (xfs_log_item_t *)&mp->m_ail.xa_ail) { lip =NULL ; }else { lip = lip->li_ail.ail_forw;
@@ -6312,9 +6312,9 @@ xfsidbg_xmount(xfs_mount_t *mp)kdb_printf ("xfs_mount at 0x%p\n" , mp);kdb_printf ("tid 0x%x ail_lock 0x%p &ail 0x%p\n" , - mp->m_tid, &mp->m_ail_lock, &mp->m_ail); + mp->m_tid, &mp->m_ail_lock, &mp->m_ail.xa_ail);kdb_printf ("ail_gen 0x%x &sb 0x%p\n" , - mp->m_ail_gen, &mp->m_sb); + mp->m_ail.xa_gen, &mp->m_sb); kdb_printf("sb_lock 0x%p sb_bp 0x%p dev 0x%x logdev 0x%x rtdev 0x%x\n", &mp->m_sb_lock, mp->m_sb_bp, mp->m_ddev_targp ? mp->m_ddev_targp->bt_dev : 0,
I like the sound of this Dave. I'm still going through the code in detail.
Could we convert the ail lock into a mutex to ease the load? I know it may not improve throughput but it would at least relieve the CPUs to do other stuff.
Quoted 670 lines · David Chinner
When many hundreds to thousands of threads all try to do simultaneous transactions and the log is in a tail-pushing situation (i.e. full), we can get multiple threads walking the AIL list and contending on the AIL lock.
Recently wevve had two cases of machines basically locking up because most of the CPUs in the system are trying to obtain the AIL lock. The first was an 8p machine with ~2,500 kernel threads trying to do transactions, and the latest is a 2048p altix closing a file per MPI rank in a synchronised fashion resulting in > 400 processes all trying to walk and push the AIL at the same time.
The AIL push is, in effect, a simple I/O dispatch algorithm complicated by the ordering constraints placed on it by the transaction subsystem. It really does not need multiple threads to push on it - even when only a single CPU is pushing the AIL, it can push the I/O out far faster that pretty much any disk subsystem can handle.
So, to avoid contention problems stemming from multiple list walkers, move the list walk off into another thread and simply provide a "target" to push to. When a thread requires a push, it sets the target and wakes the push thread, then goes to sleep waiting for the required amount of space to become available in the log.
This mechanism should also be a lot fairer under heavy load as the waiters will queue in arrival order, rather than queuing in "who completed a push first" order.
Also, by moving the pushing to a separate thread we can do more effectively overload detection and prevention as we can keep context from loop iteration to loop iteration. That is, we can push only part of the list each loop and not have to loop back to the start of the list every time we run. This should also help by reducing the number of items we try to lock and/or push items that we cannot move.
Note that this patch is not intended to solve the inefficiencies in the AIL structure and the associated issues with extremely large list contents. That needs to be addresses separately; parallel access would cause problems to any new structure as well, so I'm only aiming to isolate the structure from unbounded parallelism here.
Signed-off-by Dave Chinner <[email protected]>--- fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c | 60 +++++++++++ fs/xfs/xfs_log.c | 12 ++ fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c | 6 - fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h | 10 + fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h | 1 fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c | 231 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- fs/xfs/xfs_trans_priv.h | 8 + fs/xfs/xfsidbg.c | 12 +- 8 files changed, 247 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-)Index:
2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c
===================================================================fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c +60
-0@@ -51,6 +51,7 @@#include "xfs_vfsops.h" #include "xfs_version.h" #include "xfs_log_priv.h" +#include "xfs_trans_priv.h" #include <linux/namei.h> #include <linux/init.h> @@ -765,6 +766,65 @@ xfs_blkdev_issue_flush(blkdev_issue_flush (buftarg->bt_bdev,NULL ); } +/* +* XFS AIL push thread support +*/ +void +xfsaild_wakeup ( +xfs_mount_t *mp, +xfs_lsn_t threshold_lsn) +{ + +if (XFS_LSN_CMP (threshold_lsn, mp->m_ail.xa_target) >0 ) { + mp->m_ail.xa_target = threshold_lsn; +wake_up_process (mp->m_ail.xa_task); + } +} + +int +xfsaild ( +void *data) +{ +xfs_mount_t *mp = (xfs_mount_t *)data; +xfs_lsn_t last_pushed_lsn =0 ; +long tout =0 ; + +while (!kthread_should_stop ()) { +if (tout) +schedule_timeout_interruptible (msecs_to_jiffies (tout)); + +/* swsusp */ +try_to_freeze (); + +/* we're either starting or stopping if there is no log */ +if (!mp->m_log) +continue ; + + tout =xfsaild_push (mp, &last_pushed_lsn); + } + +return 0 ; +}/* xfsaild */ + +void +xfsaild_start ( +xfs_mount_t *mp) +{ + mp->m_ail.xa_target =0 ; + mp->m_ail.xa_task =kthread_run (xfsaild, mp,"xfsaild" ); +ASSERT (!IS_ERR (mp->m_ail.xa_task)); +/* XXX: should return error but nowhere to do it */ +} + +void +xfsaild_stop ( +xfs_mount_t *mp) +{ +kthread_stop (mp->m_ail.xa_task); +} + + + STATIC struct inode *xfs_fs_alloc_inode (struct super_block *sb)Index:
2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c
===================================================================fs/xfs/xfs_log.c +11
-1@@ -515,6 +515,12 @@ xfs_log_mount(xfs_mount_t *mp, mp->m_log =xlog_alloc_log (mp, log_target, blk_offset, num_bblks);/* +* Initialize the AIL now we have a log. +*/ +spin_lock_init (&mp->m_ail_lock); +xfs_trans_ail_init (mp); + +/* * skip log recovery on a norecovery mount. pretend it all * just worked. */ @@ -530,7 +536,7 @@ xfs_log_mount(xfs_mount_t *mp, mp->m_flags |=XFS_MOUNT_RDONLY ;if (error) {cmn_err (CE_WARN ,"XFS: log mount/recovery failed: error %d" , error); -xlog_dealloc_log (mp->m_log); +xfs_log_unmount_dealloc (mp);return error; } }@@ -722,10 +728,14 @@ xfs_log_unmount_write(xfs_mount_t *mp)/* * Deallocate log structures for unmount/relocation. +* +* We need to stop the aild from running before we destroy +* and deallocate the log as the aild references the log. */ void xfs_log_unmount_dealloc (xfs_mount_t *mp) { +xfs_trans_ail_destroy (mp);xlog_dealloc_log (mp->m_log); }Index:
2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
===================================================================fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c +0
-6@@ -137,15 +137,9 @@ xfs_mount_init(void) mp->m_flags |=XFS_MOUNT_NO_PERCPU_SB ; } -spin_lock_init (&mp->m_ail_lock);spin_lock_init (&mp->m_sb_lock);mutex_init (&mp->m_ilock);mutex_init (&mp->m_growlock); -/* -* Initialize the AIL. -*/ -xfs_trans_ail_init (mp); -atomic_set (&mp->m_active_trans,0 );return mp;Index:
2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
===================================================================fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h +8
-2@@ -219,12 +219,18 @@ extern void xfs_icsb_sync_counters_flags#define xfs_icsb_sync_counters_flags (mp, flags) do { } while (0)#endif +typedef struct xfs_ail { +xfs_ail_entry_t xa_ail; +uint xa_gen; +struct task_struct *xa_task; +xfs_lsn_t xa_target; +}xfs_ail_t ; + typedef struct xfs_mount { struct super_block *m_super; xfs_tid_t m_tid; /* next unused tid for fs */ spinlock_t m_ail_lock; /* fs AIL mutex */ - xfs_ail_entry_t m_ail; /* fs active log item list */ - uint m_ail_gen; /* fs AIL generation count */ + xfs_ail_t m_ail; /* fs active log item list */ xfs_sb_t m_sb; /* copy of fs superblock */ spinlock_t m_sb_lock; /* sb counter lock */ struct xfs_buf *m_sb_bp; /* buffer for superblock */Index:
2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h
===================================================================fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h +1
-0@@ -993,6 +993,7 @@ int _xfs_trans_commit(xfs_trans_t *,#define xfs_trans_commit (tp, flags) _xfs_trans_commit(tp, flags, NULL)void xfs_trans_cancel (xfs_trans_t *,int );void xfs_trans_ail_init (struct xfs_mount *); +void xfs_trans_ail_destroy (struct xfs_mount *);xfs_lsn_t xfs_trans_push_ail (struct xfs_mount *,xfs_lsn_t );xfs_lsn_t xfs_trans_tail_ail (struct xfs_mount *); void xfs_trans_unlocked_item(struct xfs_mount *,Index:
2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c
===================================================================fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +153
-78@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ xfs_trans_tail_ail(xfs_log_item_t *lip;spin_lock (&mp->m_ail_lock); - lip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail)); + lip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail.xa_ail));if (lip ==NULL ) { lsn = (xfs_lsn_t )0 ; }else {@@ -71,25 +71,22 @@ xfs_trans_tail_ail(/* * xfs_trans_push_ail * -* This routine is called to move the tail of the AIL -* forward. It does this by trying to flush items in the AIL -* whose lsns are below the given threshold_lsn. +* This routine is called to move the tail of the AIL forward. It does this by +* trying to flush items in the AIL whose lsns are below the given +* threshold_lsn. * -* The routine returns the lsn of the tail of the log. +* the push is run asynchronously in a separate thread, so we return the tail +* of the log right now instead of the tail after the push. This means we will +* either continue right away, or we will sleep waiting on the async thread to +* do it's work. */ xfs_lsn_t xfs_trans_push_ail (xfs_mount_t *mp,xfs_lsn_t threshold_lsn) { -xfs_lsn_t lsn;xfs_log_item_t *lip;int gen; -int restarts; -int lock_result; -int flush_log; - -#define XFS_TRANS_PUSH_AIL_RESTARTS 1000spin_lock (&mp->m_ail_lock); lip =xfs_trans_first_ail (mp, &gen);@@ -100,57 +97,105 @@ xfs_trans_push_ail(spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock);return (xfs_lsn_t )0 ; } +if (XFS_LSN_CMP (threshold_lsn, mp->m_ail.xa_target) >0 ) +xfsaild_wakeup (mp, threshold_lsn); +spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock); +return (xfs_lsn_t )lip->li_lsn; +} + +/* +* Return the item in the AIL with the current lsn. +* Return the current tree generation number for use +* in calls to xfs_trans_next_ail(). +*/ +STATIC xfs_log_item_t * +xfs_trans_first_push_ail ( +xfs_mount_t *mp, +int *gen, +xfs_lsn_t lsn) +{ +xfs_log_item_t *lip; + + lip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail.xa_ail)); + *gen = (int )mp->m_ail.xa_gen; +while (lip && (XFS_LSN_CMP (lip->li_lsn, lsn) <0 )) + lip = lip->li_ail.ail_forw; + +return (lip); +} + +/* +* Function that does the work of pushing on the AIL +*/ +long +xfsaild_push ( +xfs_mount_t *mp, +xfs_lsn_t *last_lsn) +{ +long tout =100 ;/* milliseconds */ +xfs_lsn_t last_pushed_lsn = *last_lsn; +xfs_lsn_t target = mp->m_ail.xa_target; +xfs_lsn_t lsn; +xfs_log_item_t *lip; +int lock_result; +int gen; +int restarts; +int flush_log, count, stuck; + +#define XFS_TRANS_PUSH_AIL_RESTARTS 10 + +spin_lock (&mp->m_ail_lock); + lip =xfs_trans_first_push_ail (mp, &gen, *last_lsn); +if (lip ==NULL ||XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN (mp)) { +/* +* AIL is empty or our push has reached the end. +*/ +spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock); + last_pushed_lsn =0 ; + goto out; + }XFS_STATS_INC (xs_push_ail);/* * While the item we are looking at is below the given threshold -* try to flush it out. Make sure to limit the number of times -* we allow xfs_trans_next_ail() to restart scanning from the -* beginning of the list. We'd like not to stop until we've at least +* try to flush it out. We'd like not to stop until we've at least * tried to push on everything in the AIL with an LSN less than -* the given threshold. However, we may give up before that if -* we realize that we've been holding the AIL lock for 'too long', -* blocking interrupts. Currently, too long is < 500us roughly. +* the given threshold. +* +* However, we will stop after a certain number of pushes and wait +* for a reduced timeout to fire before pushing further. This +* prevents use from spinning when we can't do anything or there is +* lots of contention on the AIL lists. */ - flush_log =0 ; - restarts =0 ; -while (((restarts <XFS_TRANS_PUSH_AIL_RESTARTS ) && - (XFS_LSN_CMP (lip->li_lsn, threshold_lsn) <0 ))) { + tout =10 ; + lsn = lip->li_lsn; + flush_log = stuck = count =0 ; +while ((XFS_LSN_CMP (lip->li_lsn, target) <0 )) {/* -* If we can lock the item without sleeping, unlock -* the AIL lock and flush the item. Then re-grab the -* AIL lock so we can look for the next item on the -* AIL. Since we unlock the AIL while we flush the -* item, the next routine may start over again at the -* the beginning of the list if anything has changed. -* That is what the generation count is for. +* If we can lock the item without sleeping, unlock the AIL +* lock and flush the item. Then re-grab the AIL lock so we +* can look for the next item on the AIL. List changes are +* handled by the AIL lookup functions internally * -* If we can't lock the item, either its holder will flush -* it or it is already being flushed or it is being relogged. -* In any of these case it is being taken care of and we -* can just skip to the next item in the list. +* If we can't lock the item, either its holder will flush it +* or it is already being flushed or it is being relogged. In +* any of these case it is being taken care of and we can just +* skip to the next item in the list. */ lock_result =IOP_TRYLOCK (lip); +spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock);switch (lock_result) {case XFS_ITEM_SUCCESS : -spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock);XFS_STATS_INC (xs_push_ail_success);IOP_PUSH (lip); -spin_lock (&mp->m_ail_lock); + last_pushed_lsn = lsn;break ;case XFS_ITEM_PUSHBUF : -spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock);XFS_STATS_INC (xs_push_ail_pushbuf); -#ifdef XFSRACEDEBUG -delay_for_intr (); -delay (300 ); -#endif -ASSERT (lip->li_ops->iop_pushbuf); -ASSERT (lip);IOP_PUSHBUF (lip); -spin_lock (&mp->m_ail_lock); + last_pushed_lsn = lsn;break ;case XFS_ITEM_PINNED :@@ -160,10 +205,14 @@ xfs_trans_push_ail(case XFS_ITEM_LOCKED :XFS_STATS_INC (xs_push_ail_locked); + last_pushed_lsn = lsn; + stuck++;break ;case XFS_ITEM_FLUSHING :XFS_STATS_INC (xs_push_ail_flushing); + last_pushed_lsn = lsn; + stuck++;break ;default :@@ -171,19 +220,26 @@ xfs_trans_push_ail(break ; } +spin_lock (&mp->m_ail_lock); + count++; +/* Too many items we can't do anything with? */ +if (stuck >100 ) +break ; +/* we're either starting or stopping if there is no log */ +if (!mp->m_log) +break ; +/* should we bother continuing? */ +if (XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN (mp)) +break ; +/* get the next item */ lip =xfs_trans_next_ail (mp, lip, &gen, &restarts); -if (lip ==NULL ) { +if (lip ==NULL )break ; - } -if (XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN (mp)) { -/* -* Just return if we shut down during the last try. -*/ -spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock); -return (xfs_lsn_t )0 ; - } - +if (restarts >XFS_TRANS_PUSH_AIL_RESTARTS ) +break ; + lsn = lip->li_lsn; } +spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock);if (flush_log) {/* @@ -191,22 +247,33 @@ xfs_trans_push_ail(* push out the log so it will become unpinned and * move forward in the AIL. */ -spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock);XFS_STATS_INC (xs_push_ail_flush);xfs_log_force (mp, (xfs_lsn_t )0 ,XFS_LOG_FORCE ); -spin_lock (&mp->m_ail_lock); } - lip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail)); -if (lip ==NULL ) { - lsn = (xfs_lsn_t )0 ; - }else { - lsn = lip->li_lsn; +/* +* We reached the target so wait a bit longer for I/O to complete and +* remove pushed items from the AIL before we start the next scan from +* the start of the AIL. +*/ +if ((XFS_LSN_CMP (lsn, target) >=0 )) { + tout +=20 ; + last_pushed_lsn =0 ; + }else if ((restarts >XFS_TRANS_PUSH_AIL_RESTARTS ) || + (count && (count < (stuck +10 )))) { +/* +* Either there is a lot of contention on the AIL or we +* found a lot of items we couldn't do anything with. +* Backoff a bit more to allow some I/O to complete before +* continuing from where we were. +*/ + tout +=10 ; } -spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock); -return lsn; -}/* xfs_trans_push_ail */ +out: + *last_lsn = last_pushed_lsn; +return tout; +}/* xfsaild_push */ /* @@ -247,7 +314,7 @@ xfs_trans_unlocked_item(* the call to xfs_log_move_tail() doesn't do anything if there's * not enough free space to wake people up so we're safe calling it. */ - min_lip =xfs_ail_min (&mp->m_ail); + min_lip =xfs_ail_min (&mp->m_ail.xa_ail);if (min_lip == lip)xfs_log_move_tail (mp,1 );@@ -279,7 +346,7 @@ xfs_trans_update_ail(xfs_log_item_t *dlip=NULL ;xfs_log_item_t *mlip;/* ptr to minimum lip */ - ailp = &(mp->m_ail); + ailp = &(mp->m_ail.xa_ail); mlip =xfs_ail_min (ailp);if (lip->li_flags &XFS_LI_IN_AIL ) {@@ -292,10 +359,10 @@ xfs_trans_update_ail( lip->li_lsn = lsn;xfs_ail_insert (ailp, lip); - mp->m_ail_gen++; + mp->m_ail.xa_gen++;if (mlip == dlip) { - mlip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail)); + mlip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail.xa_ail));spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock);xfs_log_move_tail (mp, mlip->li_lsn); }else {@@ -330,7 +397,7 @@ xfs_trans_delete_ail(xfs_log_item_t *mlip;if (lip->li_flags &XFS_LI_IN_AIL ) { - ailp = &(mp->m_ail); + ailp = &(mp->m_ail.xa_ail); mlip =xfs_ail_min (ailp); dlip =xfs_ail_delete (ailp, lip);ASSERT (dlip == lip);@@ -338,10 +405,10 @@ xfs_trans_delete_ail( lip->li_flags &= ~XFS_LI_IN_AIL ; lip->li_lsn =0 ; - mp->m_ail_gen++; + mp->m_ail.xa_gen++;if (mlip == dlip) { - mlip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail)); + mlip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail.xa_ail));spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock);xfs_log_move_tail (mp, (mlip ? mlip->li_lsn :0 )); }else {@@ -379,10 +446,10 @@ xfs_trans_first_ail( {xfs_log_item_t *lip; - lip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail)); - *gen = (int )mp->m_ail_gen; + lip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail.xa_ail)); + *gen = (int )mp->m_ail.xa_gen; -return (lip); +return lip; }/* @@ -402,11 +469,11 @@ xfs_trans_next_ail(xfs_log_item_t *nlip;ASSERT (mp && lip && gen); -if (mp->m_ail_gen == *gen) { - nlip =xfs_ail_next (&(mp->m_ail), lip); +if (mp->m_ail.xa_gen == *gen) { + nlip =xfs_ail_next (&(mp->m_ail.xa_ail), lip); }else { - nlip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail)); - *gen = (int )mp->m_ail_gen; + nlip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail).xa_ail); + *gen = (int )mp->m_ail.xa_gen;if (restarts !=NULL ) {XFS_STATS_INC (xs_push_ail_restarts); (*restarts)++;@@ -435,8 +502,16 @@ voidxfs_trans_ail_init ( xfs_mount_t *mp) { - mp->m_ail.ail_forw = (xfs_log_item_t *)&(mp->m_ail); - mp->m_ail.ail_back = (xfs_log_item_t *)&(mp->m_ail); + mp->m_ail.xa_ail.ail_forw = (xfs_log_item_t *)&mp->m_ail.xa_ail; + mp->m_ail.xa_ail.ail_back = (xfs_log_item_t *)&mp->m_ail.xa_ail; +xfsaild_start (mp); +} + +void +xfs_trans_ail_destroy ( +xfs_mount_t *mp) +{ +xfsaild_stop (mp); }/* Index:
2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_priv.h
===================================================================fs/xfs/xfs_trans_priv.h +8
-0@@ -57,4 +57,12 @@ struct xfs_log_item *xfs_trans_next_ail( struct xfs_log_item *, int *, int *); +/* +* AIL push thread support +*/ +long xfsaild_push (struct xfs_mount *,xfs_lsn_t *); +void xfsaild_wakeup (struct xfs_mount *,xfs_lsn_t ); +void xfsaild_start (struct xfs_mount *); +void xfsaild_stop (struct xfs_mount *); +#endif /* __XFS_TRANS_PRIV_H__ */ Index:
2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfsidbg.c
===================================================================fs/xfs/xfsidbg.c +6
-6@@ -6220,13 +6220,13 @@ xfsidbg_xaildump(xfs_mount_t *mp) };int count; -if ((mp->m_ail.ail_forw ==NULL ) || - (mp->m_ail.ail_forw == (xfs_log_item_t *)&mp->m_ail)) { +if ((mp->m_ail.xa_ail.ail_forw ==NULL ) || + (mp->m_ail.xa_ail.ail_forw == (xfs_log_item_t *)&mp->m_ail.xa_ail)) {kdb_printf ("AIL is empty\n" );return ; }kdb_printf ("AIL for mp 0x%p, oldest first\n" , mp); - lip = (xfs_log_item_t *)mp->m_ail.ail_forw; + lip = (xfs_log_item_t *)mp->m_ail.xa_ail.ail_forw;for (count =0 ; lip; count++) {kdb_printf ("[%d] type %s " , count,xfsidbg_item_type_str (lip));printflags ((uint)(lip->li_flags), li_flags,"flags:" );@@ -6255,7 +6255,7 @@ xfsidbg_xaildump(xfs_mount_t *mp)break ; } -if (lip->li_ail.ail_forw == (xfs_log_item_t *)&mp->m_ail) { +if (lip->li_ail.ail_forw == (xfs_log_item_t *)&mp->m_ail.xa_ail) { lip =NULL ; }else { lip = lip->li_ail.ail_forw;@@ -6312,9 +6312,9 @@ xfsidbg_xmount(xfs_mount_t *mp)kdb_printf ("xfs_mount at 0x%p\n" , mp);kdb_printf ("tid 0x%x ail_lock 0x%p &ail 0x%p\n" , - mp->m_tid, &mp->m_ail_lock, &mp->m_ail); + mp->m_tid, &mp->m_ail_lock, &mp->m_ail.xa_ail);kdb_printf ("ail_gen 0x%x &sb 0x%p\n" , - mp->m_ail_gen, &mp->m_sb); + mp->m_ail.xa_gen, &mp->m_sb); kdb_printf("sb_lock 0x%p sb_bp 0x%p dev 0x%x logdev 0x%x rtdev 0x%x\n", &mp->m_sb_lock, mp->m_sb_bp, mp->m_ddev_targp ? mp->m_ddev_targp->bt_dev : 0,
Quoted 6 lines · Lachlan McIlroy
I like the sound of this Dave. I'm still going through the code in detail.
Could we convert the ail lock into a mutex to ease the load? I know it may not improve throughput but it would at least relieve the CPUs to do other stuff.
Most of the time the ail lock is used for very short periods of time, (e.g. less than ten lines of code) so a spin lock is appropriate. What we are seeing here is too many CPUs holding it for to long trying to do the work one CPU could easily do.
i.e. the bug we are seeing here is the contention on the lock, not the type of lock. If we change to a sleeping lock, all ppl will see is a slowdown and that is much, much harder to diagnose on a production system than spin lock contention....
Cheers,
Dave.
Signature · 3 lines
Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group
Overall it looks good Dave, just a few comments below.
Quoted 92 lines · David Chinner
When many hundreds to thousands of threads all try to do simultaneous transactions and the log is in a tail-pushing situation (i.e. full), we can get multiple threads walking the AIL list and contending on the AIL lock.
Recently wevve had two cases of machines basically locking up because most of the CPUs in the system are trying to obtain the AIL lock. The first was an 8p machine with ~2,500 kernel threads trying to do transactions, and the latest is a 2048p altix closing a file per MPI rank in a synchronised fashion resulting in > 400 processes all trying to walk and push the AIL at the same time.
The AIL push is, in effect, a simple I/O dispatch algorithm complicated by the ordering constraints placed on it by the transaction subsystem. It really does not need multiple threads to push on it - even when only a single CPU is pushing the AIL, it can push the I/O out far faster that pretty much any disk subsystem can handle.
So, to avoid contention problems stemming from multiple list walkers, move the list walk off into another thread and simply provide a "target" to push to. When a thread requires a push, it sets the target and wakes the push thread, then goes to sleep waiting for the required amount of space to become available in the log.
This mechanism should also be a lot fairer under heavy load as the waiters will queue in arrival order, rather than queuing in "who completed a push first" order.
Also, by moving the pushing to a separate thread we can do more effectively overload detection and prevention as we can keep context from loop iteration to loop iteration. That is, we can push only part of the list each loop and not have to loop back to the start of the list every time we run. This should also help by reducing the number of items we try to lock and/or push items that we cannot move.
Note that this patch is not intended to solve the inefficiencies in the AIL structure and the associated issues with extremely large list contents. That needs to be addresses separately; parallel access would cause problems to any new structure as well, so I'm only aiming to isolate the structure from unbounded parallelism here.
Signed-off-by Dave Chinner <[email protected]>--- fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c | 60 +++++++++++ fs/xfs/xfs_log.c | 12 ++ fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c | 6 - fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h | 10 + fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h | 1 fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c | 231 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- fs/xfs/xfs_trans_priv.h | 8 + fs/xfs/xfsidbg.c | 12 +- 8 files changed, 247 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-)Index:
2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c
===================================================================fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c +24
-0@@ -51,6 +51,7 @@#include "xfs_vfsops.h" #include "xfs_version.h" #include "xfs_log_priv.h" +#include "xfs_trans_priv.h" #include <linux/namei.h> #include <linux/init.h> @@ -765,6 +766,65 @@ xfs_blkdev_issue_flush(blkdev_issue_flush (buftarg->bt_bdev,NULL ); } +/* +* XFS AIL push thread support +*/ +void +xfsaild_wakeup ( +xfs_mount_t *mp, +xfs_lsn_t threshold_lsn) +{ + +if (XFS_LSN_CMP (threshold_lsn, mp->m_ail.xa_target) >0 ) { + mp->m_ail.xa_target = threshold_lsn; +wake_up_process (mp->m_ail.xa_task); + } +} + +int +xfsaild ( +void *data) +{ +xfs_mount_t *mp = (xfs_mount_t *)data; +xfs_lsn_t last_pushed_lsn =0 ; +long tout =0 ; +
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c xfs_blkdev_issue_flush( · line 801
Quoted 10 lines
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c +10
-0+while (!kthread_should_stop ()) { +if (tout) +schedule_timeout_interruptible (msecs_to_jiffies (tout)); + +/* swsusp */ +try_to_freeze (); + +/* we're either starting or stopping if there is no log */ +if (!mp->m_log) +continue ;
It's looks like the log should never be NULL while the xfsaild thread is running. Could we ASSERT(mp->m_log)?
Quoted 174 lines
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c +26
-0+ + tout =xfsaild_push (mp, &last_pushed_lsn); + } + +return 0 ; +}/* xfsaild */ + +void +xfsaild_start ( +xfs_mount_t *mp) +{ + mp->m_ail.xa_target =0 ; + mp->m_ail.xa_task =kthread_run (xfsaild, mp,"xfsaild" ); +ASSERT (!IS_ERR (mp->m_ail.xa_task)); +/* XXX: should return error but nowhere to do it */ +} + +void +xfsaild_stop ( +xfs_mount_t *mp) +{ +kthread_stop (mp->m_ail.xa_task); +} + + + STATIC struct inode *xfs_fs_alloc_inode (struct super_block *sb)Index:
2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c
===================================================================fs/xfs/xfs_log.c +11
-1@@ -515,6 +515,12 @@ xfs_log_mount(xfs_mount_t *mp, mp->m_log =xlog_alloc_log (mp, log_target, blk_offset, num_bblks);/* +* Initialize the AIL now we have a log. +*/ +spin_lock_init (&mp->m_ail_lock); +xfs_trans_ail_init (mp); + +/* * skip log recovery on a norecovery mount. pretend it all * just worked. */ @@ -530,7 +536,7 @@ xfs_log_mount(xfs_mount_t *mp, mp->m_flags |=XFS_MOUNT_RDONLY ;if (error) {cmn_err (CE_WARN ,"XFS: log mount/recovery failed: error %d" , error); -xlog_dealloc_log (mp->m_log); +xfs_log_unmount_dealloc (mp);return error; } }@@ -722,10 +728,14 @@ xfs_log_unmount_write(xfs_mount_t *mp)/* * Deallocate log structures for unmount/relocation. +* +* We need to stop the aild from running before we destroy +* and deallocate the log as the aild references the log. */ void xfs_log_unmount_dealloc (xfs_mount_t *mp) { +xfs_trans_ail_destroy (mp);xlog_dealloc_log (mp->m_log); }Index:
2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
===================================================================fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c +0
-6@@ -137,15 +137,9 @@ xfs_mount_init(void) mp->m_flags |=XFS_MOUNT_NO_PERCPU_SB ; } -spin_lock_init (&mp->m_ail_lock);spin_lock_init (&mp->m_sb_lock);mutex_init (&mp->m_ilock);mutex_init (&mp->m_growlock); -/* -* Initialize the AIL. -*/ -xfs_trans_ail_init (mp); -atomic_set (&mp->m_active_trans,0 );return mp;Index:
2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
===================================================================fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h +8
-2@@ -219,12 +219,18 @@ extern void xfs_icsb_sync_counters_flags#define xfs_icsb_sync_counters_flags (mp, flags) do { } while (0)#endif +typedef struct xfs_ail { +xfs_ail_entry_t xa_ail; +uint xa_gen; +struct task_struct *xa_task; +xfs_lsn_t xa_target; +}xfs_ail_t ; + typedef struct xfs_mount { struct super_block *m_super; xfs_tid_t m_tid; /* next unused tid for fs */ spinlock_t m_ail_lock; /* fs AIL mutex */ - xfs_ail_entry_t m_ail; /* fs active log item list */ - uint m_ail_gen; /* fs AIL generation count */ + xfs_ail_t m_ail; /* fs active log item list */ xfs_sb_t m_sb; /* copy of fs superblock */ spinlock_t m_sb_lock; /* sb counter lock */ struct xfs_buf *m_sb_bp; /* buffer for superblock */Index:
2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h
===================================================================fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h +1
-0@@ -993,6 +993,7 @@ int _xfs_trans_commit(xfs_trans_t *,#define xfs_trans_commit (tp, flags) _xfs_trans_commit(tp, flags, NULL)void xfs_trans_cancel (xfs_trans_t *,int );void xfs_trans_ail_init (struct xfs_mount *); +void xfs_trans_ail_destroy (struct xfs_mount *);xfs_lsn_t xfs_trans_push_ail (struct xfs_mount *,xfs_lsn_t );xfs_lsn_t xfs_trans_tail_ail (struct xfs_mount *); void xfs_trans_unlocked_item(struct xfs_mount *,Index:
2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c
===================================================================fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +8
-11@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ xfs_trans_tail_ail(xfs_log_item_t *lip;spin_lock (&mp->m_ail_lock); - lip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail)); + lip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail.xa_ail));if (lip ==NULL ) { lsn = (xfs_lsn_t )0 ; }else {@@ -71,25 +71,22 @@ xfs_trans_tail_ail(/* * xfs_trans_push_ail * -* This routine is called to move the tail of the AIL -* forward. It does this by trying to flush items in the AIL -* whose lsns are below the given threshold_lsn. +* This routine is called to move the tail of the AIL forward. It does this by +* trying to flush items in the AIL whose lsns are below the given +* threshold_lsn. * -* The routine returns the lsn of the tail of the log. +* the push is run asynchronously in a separate thread, so we return the tail +* of the log right now instead of the tail after the push. This means we will +* either continue right away, or we will sleep waiting on the async thread to +* do it's work. */ xfs_lsn_t xfs_trans_push_ail (xfs_mount_t *mp,xfs_lsn_t threshold_lsn) { -xfs_lsn_t lsn;xfs_log_item_t *lip;int gen; -int restarts; -int lock_result; -int flush_log; - -#define XFS_TRANS_PUSH_AIL_RESTARTS 1000spin_lock (&mp->m_ail_lock); lip =xfs_trans_first_ail (mp, &gen);
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c xfs_trans_push_ail( · line 100
Quoted 4 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +1
-0@@ -100,57 +97,105 @@ xfs_trans_push_ail(spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock);return (xfs_lsn_t )0 ; } +if (XFS_LSN_CMP (threshold_lsn, mp->m_ail.xa_target) >0 )
Is this conditional necessary? Can we just call xfsaild_wakeup() and let it do the same thing?
Quoted 32 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +32
-0+xfsaild_wakeup (mp, threshold_lsn); +spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock); +return (xfs_lsn_t )lip->li_lsn; +} + +/* +* Return the item in the AIL with the current lsn. +* Return the current tree generation number for use +* in calls to xfs_trans_next_ail(). +*/ +STATIC xfs_log_item_t * +xfs_trans_first_push_ail ( +xfs_mount_t *mp, +int *gen, +xfs_lsn_t lsn) +{ +xfs_log_item_t *lip; + + lip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail.xa_ail)); + *gen = (int )mp->m_ail.xa_gen; +while (lip && (XFS_LSN_CMP (lip->li_lsn, lsn) <0 )) + lip = lip->li_ail.ail_forw; + +return (lip); +} + +/* +* Function that does the work of pushing on the AIL +*/ +long +xfsaild_push( + xfs_mount_t *mp,
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c xfs_trans_push_ail( · line 142
Quoted 10 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +10
-0+ xfs_lsn_t *last_lsn) +{ +long tout =100 ;/* milliseconds */ +xfs_lsn_t last_pushed_lsn = *last_lsn; +xfs_lsn_t target = mp->m_ail.xa_target; +xfs_lsn_t lsn; +xfs_log_item_t *lip; +int lock_result; +int gen; +int restarts;
restarts needs to be initialised
Quoted 106 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +40
-31+int flush_log, count, stuck; + +#define XFS_TRANS_PUSH_AIL_RESTARTS 10 + +spin_lock (&mp->m_ail_lock); + lip =xfs_trans_first_push_ail (mp, &gen, *last_lsn); +if (lip ==NULL ||XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN (mp)) { +/* +* AIL is empty or our push has reached the end. +*/ +spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock); + last_pushed_lsn =0 ; + goto out; + }XFS_STATS_INC (xs_push_ail);/* * While the item we are looking at is below the given threshold -* try to flush it out. Make sure to limit the number of times -* we allow xfs_trans_next_ail() to restart scanning from the -* beginning of the list. We'd like not to stop until we've at least +* try to flush it out. We'd like not to stop until we've at least * tried to push on everything in the AIL with an LSN less than -* the given threshold. However, we may give up before that if -* we realize that we've been holding the AIL lock for 'too long', -* blocking interrupts. Currently, too long is < 500us roughly. +* the given threshold. +* +* However, we will stop after a certain number of pushes and wait +* for a reduced timeout to fire before pushing further. This +* prevents use from spinning when we can't do anything or there is +* lots of contention on the AIL lists. */ - flush_log =0 ; - restarts =0 ; -while (((restarts <XFS_TRANS_PUSH_AIL_RESTARTS ) && - (XFS_LSN_CMP (lip->li_lsn, threshold_lsn) <0 ))) { + tout =10 ; + lsn = lip->li_lsn; + flush_log = stuck = count =0 ; +while ((XFS_LSN_CMP (lip->li_lsn, target) <0 )) {/* -* If we can lock the item without sleeping, unlock -* the AIL lock and flush the item. Then re-grab the -* AIL lock so we can look for the next item on the -* AIL. Since we unlock the AIL while we flush the -* item, the next routine may start over again at the -* the beginning of the list if anything has changed. -* That is what the generation count is for. +* If we can lock the item without sleeping, unlock the AIL +* lock and flush the item. Then re-grab the AIL lock so we +* can look for the next item on the AIL. List changes are +* handled by the AIL lookup functions internally * -* If we can't lock the item, either its holder will flush -* it or it is already being flushed or it is being relogged. -* In any of these case it is being taken care of and we -* can just skip to the next item in the list. +* If we can't lock the item, either its holder will flush it +* or it is already being flushed or it is being relogged. In +* any of these case it is being taken care of and we can just +* skip to the next item in the list. */ lock_result =IOP_TRYLOCK (lip); +spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock);switch (lock_result) {case XFS_ITEM_SUCCESS : -spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock);XFS_STATS_INC (xs_push_ail_success);IOP_PUSH (lip); -spin_lock (&mp->m_ail_lock); + last_pushed_lsn = lsn;break ;case XFS_ITEM_PUSHBUF : -spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock);XFS_STATS_INC (xs_push_ail_pushbuf); -#ifdef XFSRACEDEBUG -delay_for_intr (); -delay (300 ); -#endif -ASSERT (lip->li_ops->iop_pushbuf); -ASSERT (lip);IOP_PUSHBUF (lip); -spin_lock (&mp->m_ail_lock); + last_pushed_lsn = lsn;break ;case XFS_ITEM_PINNED :@@ -160,10 +205,14 @@ xfs_trans_push_ail(case XFS_ITEM_LOCKED :XFS_STATS_INC (xs_push_ail_locked); + last_pushed_lsn = lsn; + stuck++;break ;case XFS_ITEM_FLUSHING :XFS_STATS_INC (xs_push_ail_flushing); + last_pushed_lsn = lsn; + stuck++;break ;default :
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c xfs_trans_push_ail( · line 226
Quoted 7 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +4
-0@@ -171,19 +220,26 @@ xfs_trans_push_ail(break ; } +spin_lock (&mp->m_ail_lock); + count++; +/* Too many items we can't do anything with? */ +if (stuck >100 )
100? Arbitrary magic number or was there reason for this?
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c xfs_trans_push_ail( · line 229
Quoted 3 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +3
-0+break ; +/* we're either starting or stopping if there is no log */ +if (!mp->m_log)
Again, can we ASSERT(mp->m_log)?
Quoted 41 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +10
-17+break ; +/* should we bother continuing? */ +if (XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN (mp)) +break ; +/* get the next item */ lip =xfs_trans_next_ail (mp, lip, &gen, &restarts); -if (lip ==NULL ) { +if (lip ==NULL )break ; - } -if (XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN (mp)) { -/* -* Just return if we shut down during the last try. -*/ -spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock); -return (xfs_lsn_t )0 ; - } - +if (restarts >XFS_TRANS_PUSH_AIL_RESTARTS ) +break ; + lsn = lip->li_lsn; } +spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock);if (flush_log) {/* @@ -191,22 +247,33 @@ xfs_trans_push_ail(* push out the log so it will become unpinned and * move forward in the AIL. */ -spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock);XFS_STATS_INC (xs_push_ail_flush);xfs_log_force (mp, (xfs_lsn_t )0 ,XFS_LOG_FORCE ); -spin_lock (&mp->m_ail_lock); } - lip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail)); -if (lip ==NULL ) { - lsn = (xfs_lsn_t )0 ; - }else { - lsn = lip->li_lsn;
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c xfs_trans_push_ail( · line 263
Quoted 10 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +10
-0+/* +* We reached the target so wait a bit longer for I/O to complete and +* remove pushed items from the AIL before we start the next scan from +* the start of the AIL. +*/ +if ((XFS_LSN_CMP (lsn, target) >=0 )) { + tout +=20 ; + last_pushed_lsn =0 ; + }else if ((restarts >XFS_TRANS_PUSH_AIL_RESTARTS ) || + (count && (count < (stuck +10 )))) {
If 0 < count < 10 and stuck == 0 then we'll think we couldn't flush something
- not sure if that is what you intended here.
Maybe ((count - stuck) < stuck) ? ie the number of items we successfully flushed is less than the number of items we couldn't flush then back off.
Quoted 183 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +35
-19+/* +* Either there is a lot of contention on the AIL or we +* found a lot of items we couldn't do anything with. +* Backoff a bit more to allow some I/O to complete before +* continuing from where we were. +*/ + tout +=10 ; } -spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock); -return lsn; -}/* xfs_trans_push_ail */ +out: + *last_lsn = last_pushed_lsn; +return tout; +}/* xfsaild_push */ /* @@ -247,7 +314,7 @@ xfs_trans_unlocked_item(* the call to xfs_log_move_tail() doesn't do anything if there's * not enough free space to wake people up so we're safe calling it. */ - min_lip =xfs_ail_min (&mp->m_ail); + min_lip =xfs_ail_min (&mp->m_ail.xa_ail);if (min_lip == lip)xfs_log_move_tail (mp,1 );@@ -279,7 +346,7 @@ xfs_trans_update_ail(xfs_log_item_t *dlip=NULL ;xfs_log_item_t *mlip;/* ptr to minimum lip */ - ailp = &(mp->m_ail); + ailp = &(mp->m_ail.xa_ail); mlip =xfs_ail_min (ailp);if (lip->li_flags &XFS_LI_IN_AIL ) {@@ -292,10 +359,10 @@ xfs_trans_update_ail( lip->li_lsn = lsn;xfs_ail_insert (ailp, lip); - mp->m_ail_gen++; + mp->m_ail.xa_gen++;if (mlip == dlip) { - mlip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail)); + mlip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail.xa_ail));spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock);xfs_log_move_tail (mp, mlip->li_lsn); }else {@@ -330,7 +397,7 @@ xfs_trans_delete_ail(xfs_log_item_t *mlip;if (lip->li_flags &XFS_LI_IN_AIL ) { - ailp = &(mp->m_ail); + ailp = &(mp->m_ail.xa_ail); mlip =xfs_ail_min (ailp); dlip =xfs_ail_delete (ailp, lip);ASSERT (dlip == lip);@@ -338,10 +405,10 @@ xfs_trans_delete_ail( lip->li_flags &= ~XFS_LI_IN_AIL ; lip->li_lsn =0 ; - mp->m_ail_gen++; + mp->m_ail.xa_gen++;if (mlip == dlip) { - mlip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail)); + mlip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail.xa_ail));spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock);xfs_log_move_tail (mp, (mlip ? mlip->li_lsn :0 )); }else {@@ -379,10 +446,10 @@ xfs_trans_first_ail( {xfs_log_item_t *lip; - lip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail)); - *gen = (int )mp->m_ail_gen; + lip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail.xa_ail)); + *gen = (int )mp->m_ail.xa_gen; -return (lip); +return lip; }/* @@ -402,11 +469,11 @@ xfs_trans_next_ail(xfs_log_item_t *nlip;ASSERT (mp && lip && gen); -if (mp->m_ail_gen == *gen) { - nlip =xfs_ail_next (&(mp->m_ail), lip); +if (mp->m_ail.xa_gen == *gen) { + nlip =xfs_ail_next (&(mp->m_ail.xa_ail), lip); }else { - nlip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail)); - *gen = (int )mp->m_ail_gen; + nlip =xfs_ail_min (&(mp->m_ail).xa_ail); + *gen = (int )mp->m_ail.xa_gen;if (restarts !=NULL ) {XFS_STATS_INC (xs_push_ail_restarts); (*restarts)++;@@ -435,8 +502,16 @@ voidxfs_trans_ail_init ( xfs_mount_t *mp) { - mp->m_ail.ail_forw = (xfs_log_item_t *)&(mp->m_ail); - mp->m_ail.ail_back = (xfs_log_item_t *)&(mp->m_ail); + mp->m_ail.xa_ail.ail_forw = (xfs_log_item_t *)&mp->m_ail.xa_ail; + mp->m_ail.xa_ail.ail_back = (xfs_log_item_t *)&mp->m_ail.xa_ail; +xfsaild_start (mp); +} + +void +xfs_trans_ail_destroy ( +xfs_mount_t *mp) +{ +xfsaild_stop (mp); }/* Index:
2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_priv.h
===================================================================fs/xfs/xfs_trans_priv.h +8
-0@@ -57,4 +57,12 @@ struct xfs_log_item *xfs_trans_next_ail( struct xfs_log_item *, int *, int *); +/* +* AIL push thread support +*/ +long xfsaild_push (struct xfs_mount *,xfs_lsn_t *); +void xfsaild_wakeup (struct xfs_mount *,xfs_lsn_t ); +void xfsaild_start (struct xfs_mount *); +void xfsaild_stop (struct xfs_mount *); +#endif /* __XFS_TRANS_PRIV_H__ */ Index:
2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfsidbg.c
===================================================================fs/xfs/xfsidbg.c +6
-6@@ -6220,13 +6220,13 @@ xfsidbg_xaildump(xfs_mount_t *mp) };int count; -if ((mp->m_ail.ail_forw ==NULL ) || - (mp->m_ail.ail_forw == (xfs_log_item_t *)&mp->m_ail)) { +if ((mp->m_ail.xa_ail.ail_forw ==NULL ) || + (mp->m_ail.xa_ail.ail_forw == (xfs_log_item_t *)&mp->m_ail.xa_ail)) {kdb_printf ("AIL is empty\n" );return ; }kdb_printf ("AIL for mp 0x%p, oldest first\n" , mp); - lip = (xfs_log_item_t *)mp->m_ail.ail_forw; + lip = (xfs_log_item_t *)mp->m_ail.xa_ail.ail_forw;for (count =0 ; lip; count++) {kdb_printf ("[%d] type %s " , count,xfsidbg_item_type_str (lip));printflags ((uint)(lip->li_flags), li_flags,"flags:" );@@ -6255,7 +6255,7 @@ xfsidbg_xaildump(xfs_mount_t *mp)break ; } -if (lip->li_ail.ail_forw == (xfs_log_item_t *)&mp->m_ail) { +if (lip->li_ail.ail_forw == (xfs_log_item_t *)&mp->m_ail.xa_ail) { lip =NULL ; }else { lip = lip->li_ail.ail_forw;@@ -6312,9 +6312,9 @@ xfsidbg_xmount(xfs_mount_t *mp)kdb_printf ("xfs_mount at 0x%p\n" , mp);kdb_printf ("tid 0x%x ail_lock 0x%p &ail 0x%p\n" , - mp->m_tid, &mp->m_ail_lock, &mp->m_ail); + mp->m_tid, &mp->m_ail_lock, &mp->m_ail.xa_ail);kdb_printf ("ail_gen 0x%x &sb 0x%p\n" , - mp->m_ail_gen, &mp->m_sb); + mp->m_ail.xa_gen, &mp->m_sb); kdb_printf("sb_lock 0x%p sb_bp 0x%p dev 0x%x logdev 0x%x rtdev 0x%x\n", &mp->m_sb_lock, mp->m_sb_bp, mp->m_ddev_targp ? mp->m_ddev_targp->bt_dev : 0,
Quoted 1 line · Lachlan McIlroy
Overall it looks good Dave, just a few comments below.
.....
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 12 lines
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c +12
-0+int +xfsaild ( +void *data) +{ +xfs_mount_t *mp = (xfs_mount_t *)data; +xfs_lsn_t last_pushed_lsn =0 ; +long tout =0 ; + +while (!kthread_should_stop ()) { +if (tout) +schedule_timeout_interruptible (msecs_to_jiffies (tout)); +
Quoted 8 lines
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c xfs_blkdev_issue_flush( · line 801
Quoted 6 lines
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c +6
-0+/* swsusp */ +try_to_freeze (); + +/* we're either starting or stopping if there is no log */ +if (!mp->m_log) +continue ;It's looks like the log should never be NULL while the xfsaild thread is running. Could we
ASSERT(mp->m_log)?
Already done.
Quoted 7 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c xfs_trans_push_ail( · line 100
Quoted 5 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +1
-0@@ -100,57 +97,105 @@ xfs_trans_push_ail(spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock);return (xfs_lsn_t )0 ; } +if (XFS_LSN_CMP (threshold_lsn, mp->m_ail.xa_target) >0 )Is this conditional necessary? Can we just call
xfsaild_wakeup()and let it do the same thing?
Already done.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +6
-0+long +xfsaild_push ( +xfs_mount_t *mp, +xfs_lsn_t *last_lsn) +{ +long tout =100 ;/* milliseconds */
Quoted 8 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c xfs_trans_push_ail( · line 142
Quoted 7 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +7
-0+xfs_lsn_t last_pushed_lsn = *last_lsn; +xfs_lsn_t target = mp->m_ail.xa_target; +xfs_lsn_t lsn; +xfs_log_item_t *lip; +int lock_result; +int gen; +int restarts;restarts needs to be initialised
Already done.
Quoted 5 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c xfs_trans_push_ail( · line 226
Quoted 4 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +4
-0+spin_lock (&mp->m_ail_lock); + count++; +/* Too many items we can't do anything with? */ +if (stuck >100 )100? Arbitrary magic number or was there reason for this?
Arbitrary magic number based on observation. basically, if we are skipping too many items because we can't flush them or they are already being flushed we back off and given them time to complete whatever operation is being done. i.e. remove pressure from the AIL while we can't make progress so traversals don't slow down further inserts and removæls to/from the AIL.
Quoted 4 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c xfs_trans_push_ail( · line 229
Quoted 3 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +3
-0+break ; +/* we're either starting or stopping if there is no log */ +if (!mp->m_log)Again, can we
ASSERT(mp->m_log)?
Already done.
Quoted 8 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c xfs_trans_push_ail( · line 263
Quoted 5 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +5
-0+if ((XFS_LSN_CMP (lsn, target) >=0 )) { + tout +=20 ; + last_pushed_lsn =0 ; + }else if ((restarts >XFS_TRANS_PUSH_AIL_RESTARTS ) || + (count && (count < (stuck +10 )))) {If 0 < count < 10 and stuck == 0 then we'll think we couldn't flush something
- not sure if that is what you intended here.
If we've got to this situation it generally means we've got an empty AIL. Hence backing off a bit more won't hurt at all because the log is pretty much clean and we are not likely to be in a tail-pushing situation in the next few milliseconds.
Quoted 3 lines
Maybe ((count - stuck) < stuck) ? ie the number of items we successfully flushed
is less than the number of items we couldn't flush then back off.
Sort of, but that's a 50% rule - what I'm checking is more like a 90% stuck threshold when we break out of the loop at stuck == 100. If you can think of a better way of expressing that....
Cheers,
Dave.
Signature · 3 lines
Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group
Quoted 81 lines · David Chinner
Quoted 1 line · Lachlan McIlroy
Overall it looks good Dave, just a few comments below.
.....
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 12 lines
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c +12
-0+int +xfsaild ( +void *data) +{ +xfs_mount_t *mp = (xfs_mount_t *)data; +xfs_lsn_t last_pushed_lsn =0 ; +long tout =0 ; + +while (!kthread_should_stop ()) { +if (tout) +schedule_timeout_interruptible (msecs_to_jiffies (tout)); +Quoted 8 lines
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c xfs_blkdev_issue_flush( · line 801
Quoted 6 lines
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c +6
-0+/* swsusp */ +try_to_freeze (); + +/* we're either starting or stopping if there is no log */ +if (!mp->m_log) +continue ;It's looks like the log should never be NULL while the xfsaild thread is running. Could we
ASSERT(mp->m_log)?Already done.
Quoted 7 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c xfs_trans_push_ail( · line 100
Quoted 5 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +1
-0@@ -100,57 +97,105 @@ xfs_trans_push_ail(spin_unlock (&mp->m_ail_lock);return (xfs_lsn_t )0 ; } +if (XFS_LSN_CMP (threshold_lsn, mp->m_ail.xa_target) >0 )Is this conditional necessary? Can we just call
xfsaild_wakeup()and let it do the same thing?Already done.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +6
-0+long +xfsaild_push ( +xfs_mount_t *mp, +xfs_lsn_t *last_lsn) +{ +long tout =100 ;/* milliseconds */ Quoted 8 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c xfs_trans_push_ail( · line 142
Quoted 7 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +7
-0+xfs_lsn_t last_pushed_lsn = *last_lsn; +xfs_lsn_t target = mp->m_ail.xa_target; +xfs_lsn_t lsn; +xfs_log_item_t *lip; +int lock_result; +int gen; +int restarts;restarts needs to be initialised
Already done.
Quoted 5 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c xfs_trans_push_ail( · line 226
Quoted 4 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +4
-0+spin_lock (&mp->m_ail_lock); + count++; +/* Too many items we can't do anything with? */ +if (stuck >100 )100? Arbitrary magic number or was there reason for this?
Arbitrary magic number based on observation. basically, if we are skipping too many items because we can't flush them or they are already being flushed we back off and given them time to complete whatever operation is being done. i.e. remove pressure from the AIL while we can't make progress so traversals don't slow down further inserts and removæls to/from the AIL.
Quoted 4 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c xfs_trans_push_ail( · line 229
Quoted 3 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +3
-0+break ; +/* we're either starting or stopping if there is no log */ +if (!mp->m_log)Again, can we
ASSERT(mp->m_log)?Already done.
Quoted 7 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c xfs_trans_push_ail( · line 263
Quoted 5 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +5
-0+if ((XFS_LSN_CMP (lsn, target) >=0 )) { + tout +=20 ; + last_pushed_lsn =0 ; + }else if ((restarts >XFS_TRANS_PUSH_AIL_RESTARTS ) || + (count && (count < (stuck +10 )))) {If 0 < count < 10 and stuck == 0 then we'll think we couldn't flush something
- not sure if that is what you intended here.
Quoted 4 lines
If we've got to this situation it generally means we've got an empty AIL. Hence backing off a bit more won't hurt at all because the log is pretty much clean and we are not likely to be in a tail-pushing situation in the next few milliseconds.
Ah, yes, good point.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Maybe ((count - stuck) < stuck) ? ie the number of items we successfully flushed is less than the number of items we couldn't flush then back off.
Sort of, but that's a 50% rule - what I'm checking is more like a 90% stuck threshold when we break out of the loop at stuck == 100. If you can think of a better way of expressing that....
something like ((stuck * 100)/count > 90) ?
or adding a bias to the 50% rule, ((count - stuck) * 10 < stuck)
Quoted 10 lines · David Chinner
Quoted 3 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c xfs_trans_push_ail( · line 226
Quoted 2 lines
fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c +2
-0+/* Too many items we can't do anything with? */ +if (stuck >100 )100? Arbitrary magic number or was there reason for this?
Arbitrary magic number based on observation. basically, if we are skipping too many items because we can't flush them or they are already being flushed we back off and given them time to complete whatever operation is being done. i.e. remove pressure from the AIL while we can't make progress so traversals don't slow down further inserts and remov?ls to/from the AIL.
Might be worth adding something like this as a comment.