Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1391689
| From | NeilBrown <mr@neil.brown.name> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 0/2] scop GFP_NOFS api |
| Date | 2016-04-30 23:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rtKsW-6dE-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rs9OO-76D-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rt9Wp-1dU-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <rtdQm-4aS-37@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw
On Fri, Apr 29 2016, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > Hi, > > On 29/04/16 06:35, NeilBrown wrote: >> If we could similarly move evict() into kswapd (and I believe we can) >> then most file systems would do nothing in reclaim context that >> interferes with allocation context. > evict() is an issue, but moving it into kswapd would be a potential > problem for GFS2. We already have a memory allocation issue when > recovery is taking place and memory is short. The code path is as follows: > > 1. Inode is scheduled for eviction (which requires deallocation) > 2. The glock is required in order to perform the deallocation, which > implies getting a DLM lock > 3. Another node in the cluster fails, so needs recovery > 4. When the DLM lock is requested, it gets blocked until recovery is > complete (for the failed node) > 5. Recovery is performed using a userland fencing utility > 6. Fencing requires memory and then blocks on the eviction > 7. Deadlock (Fencing waiting on memory alloc, memory alloc waiting on > DLM lock, DLM lock waiting on fencing) You even have user-space in the loop there - impressive! You can't really pass GFP_NOFS to a user-space thread, can you :-? > > It doesn't happen often, but we've been looking at the best place to > break that cycle, and one of the things we've been wondering is whether > we could avoid deallocation evictions from memory related contexts, or > at least make it async somehow. I think "async" is definitely the answer and I think evict()/evict_inode() is the best place to focus attention. I can see now (thanks) that just moving the evict() call to kswapd isn't really a solution as it will just serve to block kswapd and so lots of other freeing of memory won't happen. I'm now imagining giving ->evict_inode() a "don't sleep" flag and allowing it to return -EAGAIN. In that case evict would queue the inode to kswapd (or maybe another thread) for periodic retry. The flag would only get set when prune_icache_sb() calls dispose_list() to call evict(). Other uses (e.g. unmount, iput) would still be synchronous. How difficult would it be to change gfs's evict_inode() to optionally never block? For this to work we would need to add a way for deactivate_locked_super() to wait for all the async evictions to complete. Currently prune_icache_sb() is called under s_umount. If we moved part of the eviction out of that lock some other synchronization would be needed. Possibly a per-superblock list of "inodes being evicted" would suffice. Thanks, NeilBrown > > The issue is that it is not possible to know in advance whether an > eviction will result in mearly writing things back to disk (because the > inode is being dropped from cache, but still resides on disk) which is > easy to do, or whether it requires a full deallocation (n_link==0) which > may require significant resources and time, > > Steve.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 0/2] scop GFP_NOFS api NeilBrown <mr@neil.brown.name> - 2016-04-29 08:20 +0200
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 0/2] scop GFP_NOFS api Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com> - 2016-04-29 12:30 +0200
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 0/2] scop GFP_NOFS api NeilBrown <mr@neil.brown.name> - 2016-04-30 23:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/2] scop GFP_NOFS api Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-04-29 14:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/2] scop GFP_NOFS api Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-04-30 02:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/2] scop GFP_NOFS api NeilBrown <mr@neil.brown.name> - 2016-05-01 00:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/2] scop GFP_NOFS api Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-05-03 17:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/2] scop GFP_NOFS api NeilBrown <mr@neil.brown.name> - 2016-05-04 01:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/2] scop GFP_NOFS api Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-04-30 02:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/2] scop GFP_NOFS api NeilBrown <mr@neil.brown.name> - 2016-05-01 00:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/2] scop GFP_NOFS api Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-05-04 03:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/2] scop GFP_NOFS api NeilBrown <mr@neil.brown.name> - 2016-05-06 05:30 +0200
csiph-web