linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3][RESEND] fs: add infrastructure for opportunistic high-res ctime/mtime updates
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 12:23:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230421102353.blzqjrglgyiupf3g@quack3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c63c4c811cfa6c6396674e497920ec984cb476d1.camel@kernel.org>

On Tue 11-04-23 12:04:36, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-04-11 at 17:07 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 10:37:00AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > There's some performance concerns here. Calling
> > stat() is super common and it would potentially make the next iop more
> > expensive. Recursively changing ownership in the container use-case come
> > to mind which are already expensive.
> 
> stat() is common, but not generally as common as write calls are. I
> expect that we'll get somewhat similar results tochanged i_version over
> to use a similar QUERIED flag.
> 
> The i_version field was originally very expensive and required metadata
> updates on every write. After making that change, we got the same
> performance back in most tests that we got without the i_version field
> being enabled at all. Basically, this just means we'll end up logging an
> extra journal transaction on some writes that follow a stat() call,
> which turns out to be line noise for most workloads.
> 
> I do agree that performance is a concern here though. We'll need to
> benchmark this somehow.

So for stat-intensive read-only workloads the additional inode_lock locking
during stat may be noticeable. I suppose a stress test stating the same
file in a loop from all CPUs the machine has will certainly notice :) But
that's just an unrealistic worst case.

We could check whether the QUERIED flag is already set and if yes, skip the
locking. That should fix the read-only workload case. We just have to think
whether there would not be some unpleasant races created.

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


  reply	other threads:[~2023-04-21 10:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-04-11 14:36 [RFC PATCH 0/3][RESEND] fs: opportunistic high-res file timestamps Jeff Layton
2023-04-11 14:37 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3][RESEND] fs: add infrastructure for opportunistic high-res ctime/mtime updates Jeff Layton
2023-04-11 14:42   ` Darrick J. Wong
2023-04-11 14:54     ` Jeff Layton
2023-04-11 15:07   ` Christian Brauner
2023-04-11 16:04     ` Jeff Layton
2023-04-21 10:23       ` Jan Kara [this message]
2023-04-11 14:37 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3][RESEND] shmem: mark for high-res timestamps on next update after getattr Jeff Layton
2023-04-24  7:20   ` kernel test robot
2023-04-11 14:37 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3][RESEND] xfs: mark the inode for high-res timestamp update in getattr Jeff Layton
2023-04-11 14:54   ` Darrick J. Wong
2023-04-11 15:15     ` Christian Brauner
2023-04-11 16:05       ` Jeff Layton
2023-04-11 15:58     ` Jeff Layton
2023-04-21  2:04   ` kernel test robot
2023-04-11 23:13 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3][RESEND] fs: opportunistic high-res file timestamps Dave Chinner
2023-04-15 11:35 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-04-15 12:13   ` Jeff Layton
2023-04-15 16:19   ` [RFC PATCH 0/3][RESEND] " Chuck Lever III

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=20230421102353.blzqjrglgyiupf3g@quack3 \
    --to=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --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