lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v5 06/10] ovl: implement overlayfs' ->write_inode operation
On Fri 19-11-21 14:12:46, Chengguang Xu wrote:
> ---- 在 星期五, 2021-11-19 00:43:49 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> 撰写 ----
> > On Thu 18-11-21 20:02:09, Chengguang Xu wrote:
> > > ---- 在 星期四, 2021-11-18 19:23:15 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> 撰写 ----
> > > > On Thu 18-11-21 14:32:36, Chengguang Xu wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ---- 在 星期三, 2021-11-17 14:11:29 Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net> 撰写 ----
> > > > > > ---- 在 星期二, 2021-11-16 20:35:55 Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> 撰写 ----
> > > > > > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 at 03:20, Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---- 在 星期四, 2021-10-07 21:34:19 Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> 撰写 ----
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 15:10, Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > However that wasn't what I was asking about. AFAICS ->write_inode()
> > > > > > > > > > > won't start write back for dirty pages. Maybe I'm missing something,
> > > > > > > > > > > but there it looks as if nothing will actually trigger writeback for
> > > > > > > > > > > dirty pages in upper inode.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Actually, page writeback on upper inode will be triggered by overlayfs ->writepages and
> > > > > > > > > > overlayfs' ->writepages will be called by vfs writeback function (i.e writeback_sb_inodes).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Right.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But wouldn't it be simpler to do this from ->write_inode()?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I.e. call write_inode_now() as suggested by Jan.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also could just call mark_inode_dirty() on the overlay inode
> > > > > > > > > regardless of the dirty flags on the upper inode since it shouldn't
> > > > > > > > > matter and results in simpler logic.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Miklos,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry for delayed response for this, I've been busy with another project.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree with your suggesion above and further more how about just mark overlay inode dirty
> > > > > > > > when it has upper inode? This approach will make marking dirtiness simple enough.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you suggesting that all non-lower overlay inodes should always be dirty?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The logic would be simple, no doubt, but there's the cost to walking
> > > > > > > those overlay inodes which don't have a dirty upper inode, right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's true.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you quantify this cost with a benchmark? Can be totally synthetic,
> > > > > > > e.g. lookup a million upper files without modifying them, then call
> > > > > > > syncfs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No problem, I'll do some tests for the performance.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Miklos,
> > > > >
> > > > > I did some rough tests and the results like below. In practice, I don't
> > > > > think that 1.3s extra time of syncfs will cause significant problem.
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Well, burning 1.3s worth of CPU time for doing nothing seems like quite a
> > > > bit to me. I understand this is with 1000000 inodes but although that is
> > > > quite a few it is not unheard of. If there would be several containers
> > > > calling sync_fs(2) on the machine they could easily hog the machine... That
> > > > is why I was originally against keeping overlay inodes always dirty and
> > > > wanted their dirtiness to at least roughly track the real need to do
> > > > writeback.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Jan,
> > >
> > > Actually, the time on user and sys are almost same with directly excute syncfs on underlying fs.
> > > IMO, it only extends syncfs(2) waiting time for perticular container but not burning cpu.
> > > What am I missing?
> >
> > Ah, right, I've missed that only realtime changed, not systime. I'm sorry
> > for confusion. But why did the realtime increase so much? Are we waiting
> > for some IO?
> >
>
> There are many places to call cond_resched() in writeback process,
> so sycnfs process was scheduled several times.

I was thinking about this a bit more and I don't think I buy this
explanation. What I rather think is happening is that real work for syncfs
(writeback_inodes_sb() and sync_inodes_sb() calls) gets offloaded to a flush
worker. E.g. writeback_inodes_sb() ends up calling
__writeback_inodes_sb_nr() which does:

bdi_split_work_to_wbs()
wb_wait_for_completion()

So you don't see the work done in the times accounted to your test
program. But in practice the flush worker is indeed burning 1.3s worth of
CPU to scan the 1 million inode list and do nothing.

Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-30 12:22    [W:0.500 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site