From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
To: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Subject: [PATCH mm-unstable RFC 1/5] writeback: move wb_over_bg_thresh() call outside lock section
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2023 22:03:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230403220337.443510-2-yosryahmed@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230403220337.443510-1-yosryahmed@google.com>
wb_over_bg_thresh() calls mem_cgroup_wb_stats() which invokes an rstat
flush, which can be expensive on large systems. Currently,
wb_writeback() calls wb_over_bg_thresh() within a lock section, so we
have to make the rstat flush atomically. On systems with a lot of
cpus/cgroups, this can cause us to disable irqs for a long time,
potentially causing problems.
Move the call to wb_over_bg_thresh() outside the lock section in
preparation to make the rstat flush in mem_cgroup_wb_stats() non-atomic.
The list_empty(&wb->work_list) should be okay outside the lock section
of wb->list_lock as it is protected by a separate lock (wb->work_lock),
and wb_over_bg_thresh() doesn't seem like it is modifying any of the b_*
lists the wb->list_lock is protecting. Also, the loop seems to be
already releasing and reacquring the lock, so this refactoring looks
safe.
Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
---
fs/fs-writeback.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
index 195dc23e0d831..012357bc8daa3 100644
--- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
+++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
@@ -2021,7 +2021,6 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
struct blk_plug plug;
blk_start_plug(&plug);
- spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
for (;;) {
/*
* Stop writeback when nr_pages has been consumed
@@ -2046,6 +2045,9 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
if (work->for_background && !wb_over_bg_thresh(wb))
break;
+
+ spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
+
/*
* Kupdate and background works are special and we want to
* include all inodes that need writing. Livelock avoidance is
@@ -2075,13 +2077,19 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
* mean the overall work is done. So we keep looping as long
* as made some progress on cleaning pages or inodes.
*/
- if (progress)
+ if (progress) {
+ spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
continue;
+ }
+
/*
* No more inodes for IO, bail
*/
- if (list_empty(&wb->b_more_io))
+ if (list_empty(&wb->b_more_io)) {
+ spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
break;
+ }
+
/*
* Nothing written. Wait for some inode to
* become available for writeback. Otherwise
@@ -2093,9 +2101,7 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
/* This function drops i_lock... */
inode_sleep_on_writeback(inode);
- spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
}
- spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
blk_finish_plug(&plug);
return nr_pages - work->nr_pages;
--
2.40.0.348.gf938b09366-goog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-03 22:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-03 22:03 [PATCH mm-unstable RFC 0/5] cgroup: eliminate atomic rstat Yosry Ahmed
2023-04-03 22:03 ` Yosry Ahmed [this message]
2023-04-19 11:38 ` [PATCH mm-unstable RFC 1/5] writeback: move wb_over_bg_thresh() call outside lock section Michal Koutný
2023-04-20 20:23 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-04-20 18:53 ` Shakeel Butt
2023-04-20 20:22 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-04-21 8:53 ` Jan Kara
2023-04-21 17:21 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-04-03 22:03 ` [PATCH mm-unstable RFC 2/5] memcg: flush stats non-atomically in mem_cgroup_wb_stats() Yosry Ahmed
2023-04-19 11:44 ` Michal Koutný
2023-04-20 18:55 ` Shakeel Butt
2023-04-03 22:03 ` [PATCH mm-unstable RFC 3/5] memcg: calculate root usage from global state Yosry Ahmed
2023-04-11 12:53 ` Michal Koutný
2023-04-11 16:59 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-04-20 18:57 ` Shakeel Butt
2023-04-03 22:03 ` [PATCH mm-unstable RFC 4/5] memcg: remove mem_cgroup_flush_stats_atomic() Yosry Ahmed
2023-04-20 19:38 ` Shakeel Butt
2023-04-03 22:03 ` [PATCH mm-unstable RFC 5/5] cgroup: remove cgroup_rstat_flush_atomic() Yosry Ahmed
2023-04-20 19:40 ` Shakeel Butt
2023-04-20 19:48 ` Tejun Heo
2023-04-20 20:19 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-04-03 22:04 ` [PATCH mm-unstable RFC 0/5] cgroup: eliminate atomic rstat Yosry Ahmed
2023-04-06 18:26 ` Tim Chen
2023-04-06 18:23 ` Tim Chen
2023-04-17 11:54 ` Yosry Ahmed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230403220337.443510-2-yosryahmed@google.com \
--to=yosryahmed@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=songmuchun@bytedance.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox