Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Filesystem inode reclaim

[Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>]

On Thu 09-04-26 14:57:47, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 11:17 AM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> > This is a recurring topic Matthew has been kicking forward for the last
> > year so let me maybe offer a fs-person point of view on the problem and
> > possible solutions. The problem is very simple: When a filesystem (ext4,
> > btrfs, vfat) is about to reclaim an inode, it sometimes needs to perform a
> > complex cleanup - like trimming of preallocated blocks beyond end of file,
> > making sure journalling machinery is done with the inode, etc.. This may
> > require reading metadata into memory which requires memory allocations and
> > as inode eviction cannot fail, these are effectively GFP_NOFAIL
> > allocations (and there are other reasons why it would be very difficult to
> > make some of these required allocations in the filesystems failable).
> >
> > GFP_NOFAIL allocation from reclaim context (be it kswapd or direct reclaim)
> > trigger warnings - and for a good reason as forward progress isn't
> > guaranteed. Also it leaves a bad taste that we are performing sometimes
> > rather long running operations blocking on IO from reclaim context thus
> > stalling reclaim for substantial amount of time to free 1k worth of slab
> > cache.
> >
> > I have been mulling over possible solutions since I don't think each
> > filesystem should be inventing a complex inode lifetime management scheme
> > as XFS has invented to solve these issues. Here's what I think we could do:
> >
> > 1) Filesystems will be required to mark inodes that have non-trivial
> > cleanup work to do on reclaim with an inode flag I_RECLAIM_HARD (or
> > whatever :)). Usually I expect this to happen on first inode modification
> > or so. This will require some per-fs work but it shouldn't be that
> > difficult and filesystems can be adapted one-by-one as they decide to
> > address these warnings from reclaim.
> >
> > 2) Inodes without I_RECLAIM_HARD will be reclaimed as usual directly from
> > kswapd / direct reclaim. I'm keeping this variant of inode reclaim for
> > performance reasons. I expect this to be a significant portion of inodes
> > on average and in particular for some workloads which scan a lot of inodes
> > (find through the whole fs or similar) the efficiency of inode reclaim is
> > one of the determining factors for their performance.
> >
> > 3) Inodes with I_RECLAIM_HARD will be moved by the shrinker to a separate
> > per-sb list s_hard_reclaim_inodes and we'll queue work (per-sb work struct)
> > to process them.
> >
> > 4) The work will walk s_hard_reclaim_inodes list and call evict() for each
> > inode, doing the hard work.
> >
> > This way, kswapd / direct reclaim doesn't wait for hard to reclaim inodes
> > and they can work on freeing memory needed for freeing of hard to reclaim
> > inodes. So warnings about GFP_NOFAIL allocations aren't only papered over,
> > they should really be addressed.
> >
> > One possible concern is that s_hard_reclaim_inodes list could grow out of
> > control for some workloads (in particular because there could be multiple
> > CPUs generating hard to reclaim inodes while the cleanup would be
> > single-threaded). This could be addressed by tracking number of inodes in
> > that list and if it grows over some limit, we could start throttling
> > processes when setting I_RECLAIM_HARD inode flag.
> >
> > There's also a simpler approach to this problem but with more radical
> > changes to behavior. For example getting rid of inode LRU completely -
> > inodes without dentries referencing them anymore should be rare and it
> > isn't very useful to cache them. So we can always drop inodes on last
> > iput() (as we currently do for example for unlinked inodes). But I have a
> > nagging feeling that somebody is depending on inode LRU somewhere - I'd
> > like poll the collective knowledge of what could possibly go wrong here :)
> >
> > In the session I'd like to discuss if people see some problems with these
> > approaches, what they'd prefer etc.
> 
> Is this expected to be a FS+MM session or only FS+Matthew?

I was thinking of FS+MM but if MM gets too crowded, we could do with MM +
Matthew. I think the problem lies mostly in fs land but it's good to get
some vetting from MM people that we aren't bending slab reclaim assumptions
too much...

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