Date:	Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:14:37 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	xfs@....sgi.com,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: page fault scalability (ext3, ext4, xfs)

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 09:32:13PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 09:11:01PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 04:38:12PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> > > It would be better to write zeros to it, so we aren't measuring the
>> >> > > cost of the unwritten->written conversion.
>> >> >
>> >> > At the risk of beating a dead horse, how hard would it be to defer
>> >> > this part until writeback?
>> >>
>> >> Part of the work has to be done at write time because we need to
>> >> update allocation statistics (i.e., so that we don't have ENOSPC
>> >> problems).  The unwritten->written conversion does happen at writeback
>> >> (as does the actual block allocation if we are doing delayed
>> >> allocation).
>> >>
>> >> The point is that if the goal is to measure page fault scalability, we
>> >> shouldn't have this other stuff happening as the same time as the page
>> >> fault workload.
>> >
>> > Sure, but the real problem is not the block mapping or allocation
>> > path - even if the test is changed to take that out of the picture,
>> > we still have timestamp updates being done on every single page
>> > fault. ext4, XFS and btrfs all do transactional timestamp updates
>> > and have nanosecond granularity, so every page fault is resulting in
>> > a transaction to update the timestamp of the file being modified.
>>
>> I have (unmergeable) patches to fix this:
>>
>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/92476
>
> The big problem with this approach is that not doing the
> timestamp update on page faults is going to break the inode change
> version counting because for ext4, btrfs and XFS it takes a
> transaction to bump that counter. NFS needs to know the moment a
> file is changed in memory, not when it is written to disk. Also, NFS
> requires the change to the counter to be persistent over server
> failures, so it needs to be changed as part of a transaction....

I've been running a kernel that has the file_update_time call
commented out for over a year now, and the only problem I've seen is
that the timestamp doesn't get updated :)

I think I must be misunderstanding you (or vice versa).  I'm currently
redoing the patches, and this time I'll do it for just the mm core and
ext4.  The only change I'm proposing to ext4's page_mkwrite is to
remove the file_update_time call.  Instead, ext4 will call
file_update_time on munmap, exit, MS_ASYNC, and at the end of
writepages.  Unless I'm missing something, there's no need to
unconditionally start a transaction on page_mkwrite (and there had
better not be, because file_update_time won't start a transaction if
the time doesn't change).

NFS can do whatever it wants, although I suspect that even NFS can get
away with deferring cmtime updates.

--Andy

>
> IOWs, fixing the "filesystems need a transaction on each page_mkwrite
> call" problem isn't as simple as changing how timestamps are
> updated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@...morbit.com



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists