[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87pn7pfos7.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 07:19:20 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: willy@...per.infradead.org
Cc: Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@...cle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew.wilcox@...cle.com>,
Srinivas Eeda <SRINIVAS.EEDA@...cle.com>,
"joe.jin\@oracle.com" <joe.jin@...cle.com>,
Wengang Wang <wen.gang.wang@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: Avoid a thundering herd of threads freeing proc dentries
willy@...per.infradead.org writes:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 10:20:40AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@...cle.com> writes:
>> > On 6/20/20 9:27 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 05:42:45PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >>> Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@...cle.com> writes:
>> >>>> Still high lock contention. Collect the following hot path.
>> >>> A different location this time.
>> >>>
>> >>> I know of at least exit_signal and exit_notify that take thread wide
>> >>> locks, and it looks like exit_mm is another. Those don't use the same
>> >>> locks as flushing proc.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> So I think you are simply seeing a result of the thundering herd of
>> >>> threads shutting down at once. Given that thread shutdown is fundamentally
>> >>> a slow path there is only so much that can be done.
>> >>>
>> >>> If you are up for a project to working through this thundering herd I
>> >>> expect I can help some. It will be a long process of cleaning up
>> >>> the entire thread exit process with an eye to performance.
>> >> Wengang had some tests which produced wall-clock values for this problem,
>> >> which I agree is more informative.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not entirely sure what the customer workload is that requires a
>> >> highly threaded workload to also shut down quickly. To my mind, an
>> >> overall workload is normally composed of highly-threaded tasks that run
>> >> for a long time and only shut down rarely (thus performance of shutdown
>> >> is not important) and single-threaded tasks that run for a short time.
>> >
>> > The real workload is a Java application working in server-agent mode, issue
>> > happened in agent side, all it do is waiting works dispatching from server and
>> > execute. To execute one work, agent will start lots of short live threads, there
>> > could be a lot of threads exit same time if there were a lots of work to
>> > execute, the contention on the exit path caused a high %sys time which impacted
>> > other workload.
>>
>> If I understand correctly, the Java VM is not exiting. Just some of
>> it's threads.
>>
>> That is a very different problem to deal with. That are many
>> optimizations that are possible when _all_ of the threads are exiting
>> that are not possible when _many_ threads are exiting.
>
> Ah! Now I get it. This explains why the dput() lock contention was
> so important. A new thread starting would block on that lock as it
> tried to create its new /proc/$pid/task/ directory.
>
> Terminating thousands of threads but not the entire process isn't going
> to hit many of the locks (eg exit_signal() and exit_mm() aren't going
> to be called). So we need a more sophisticated micro benchmark that is
> continually starting threads and asking dozens-to-thousands of them to
> stop at the same time. Otherwise we'll try to fix lots of scalability
> problems that our customer doesn't care about.
Has anyone come up with a more sophisticated microbenchmark or otherwise
made any progress in tracking this down farther?
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists