From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.223.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DC421FA17F; Wed, 27 Nov 2024 12:02:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.131 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732708964; cv=none; b=dgqwnnmRPTabB74Zabe7gRZgbm5DCFuB9Etc1emmfMK6hpjIat1GhUnSe1Qd4bGj31ItU5VoBA6XjJCUZNCqMNPI0NWQAsxan9qdAdtYgofkxt6z7HqEgcUBi8LDVmLDNWjsu3L3WZ8dXqN/6SJY0pbgViJLiCxqUXdE5cy5jH8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732708964; c=relaxed/simple; bh=aOL4M8DLYUedNI0OP5gYrOnKNvDjqHbyv4TwLm4YOV8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Qvonav15cAsgM28mWcFgsGdLgQuCb0ZE2PxZx3OAGqbrFQu7bDXcY7EZX09+c4h5AuLLIxUzqzMcf08PSNj9J7PGxehE5l8JbBzLLOJuEPBHi7fAgENjwtiPSEqAPuOvXhutz66cZFJKfNoI6NgXOUuWIbDm1tKv7UosGKGqFAI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=BkWU+T40; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=PmsVLffv; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=BkWU+T40; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=PmsVLffv; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.131 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="BkWU+T40"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="PmsVLffv"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="BkWU+T40"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="PmsVLffv" Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F1481F770; Wed, 27 Nov 2024 12:02:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1732708959; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YKCN/jjYz46d2mr96flpQkyS6oKGUlfViaa4MefoOdQ=; b=BkWU+T40OTcpiOFVAuI8IgBkC8saI0/2jmRdJ2R//RCJ1+hd8Wf+QkoltRT5t2fkHPn/kE CUUCoXnm8CvM0XgQjWxypt3xn7R6olWvjXYBTMZ1ryilDD+Qu1iPaAUIIwdZgtuVjTNjkA SowtW4vkeBxxfNCkOgkj8Za7o2maTds= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1732708959; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YKCN/jjYz46d2mr96flpQkyS6oKGUlfViaa4MefoOdQ=; b=PmsVLffvB/Rc/f8b2X9VpJrTjNhOWn5YpTQ8kOpYTJ8MT8ECEHCU+88zhzlqtFto0z4X7L 0AZRivafKLrpRvAA== Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=BkWU+T40; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=PmsVLffv DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1732708959; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YKCN/jjYz46d2mr96flpQkyS6oKGUlfViaa4MefoOdQ=; b=BkWU+T40OTcpiOFVAuI8IgBkC8saI0/2jmRdJ2R//RCJ1+hd8Wf+QkoltRT5t2fkHPn/kE CUUCoXnm8CvM0XgQjWxypt3xn7R6olWvjXYBTMZ1ryilDD+Qu1iPaAUIIwdZgtuVjTNjkA SowtW4vkeBxxfNCkOgkj8Za7o2maTds= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1732708959; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YKCN/jjYz46d2mr96flpQkyS6oKGUlfViaa4MefoOdQ=; b=PmsVLffvB/Rc/f8b2X9VpJrTjNhOWn5YpTQ8kOpYTJ8MT8ECEHCU+88zhzlqtFto0z4X7L 0AZRivafKLrpRvAA== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E908139AA; Wed, 27 Nov 2024 12:02:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id gor2Gl8KR2dAagAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Wed, 27 Nov 2024 12:02:39 +0000 Received: by quack3.suse.cz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 27D23A08D6; Wed, 27 Nov 2024 13:02:35 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 13:02:35 +0100 From: Jan Kara To: Mateusz Guzik Cc: Bharata B Rao , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, nikunj@amd.com, willy@infradead.org, vbabka@suse.cz, david@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, yuzhao@google.com, axboe@kernel.dk, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org, jack@suse.cz, joshdon@google.com, clm@meta.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Large folios in block buffered IO path Message-ID: <20241127120235.ejpvpks3fosbzbkr@quack3> References: <20241127054737.33351-1-bharata@amd.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 7F1481F770 X-Spam-Score: -4.01 X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.01 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; RCPT_COUNT_TWELVE(0.00)[18]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVRCPT(0.00)[gmail.com]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:25478, ipnet:::/0, country:RU]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.cz:+]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.cz:dkim,imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:rdns,imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo,suse.com:email] X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd1.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Level: On Wed 27-11-24 07:19:59, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 7:13 AM Mateusz Guzik wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 6:48 AM Bharata B Rao wrote: > > > > > > Recently we discussed the scalability issues while running large > > > instances of FIO with buffered IO option on NVME block devices here: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/d2841226-e27b-4d3d-a578-63587a3aa4f3@amd.com/ > > > > > > One of the suggestions Chris Mason gave (during private discussions) was > > > to enable large folios in block buffered IO path as that could > > > improve the scalability problems and improve the lock contention > > > scenarios. > > > > > > > I have no basis to comment on the idea. > > > > However, it is pretty apparent whatever the situation it is being > > heavily disfigured by lock contention in blkdev_llseek: > > > > > perf-lock contention output > > > --------------------------- > > > The lock contention data doesn't look all that conclusive but for 30% rwmixwrite > > > mix it looks like this: > > > > > > perf-lock contention default > > > contended total wait max wait avg wait type caller > > > > > > 1337359017 64.69 h 769.04 us 174.14 us spinlock rwsem_wake.isra.0+0x42 > > > 0xffffffff903f60a3 native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0x1f3 > > > 0xffffffff903f537c _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x5c > > > 0xffffffff8f39e7d2 rwsem_wake.isra.0+0x42 > > > 0xffffffff8f39e88f up_write+0x4f > > > 0xffffffff8f9d598e blkdev_llseek+0x4e > > > 0xffffffff8f703322 ksys_lseek+0x72 > > > 0xffffffff8f7033a8 __x64_sys_lseek+0x18 > > > 0xffffffff8f20b983 x64_sys_call+0x1fb3 > > > 2665573 64.38 h 1.98 s 86.95 ms rwsem:W blkdev_llseek+0x31 > > > 0xffffffff903f15bc rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0x36c > > > 0xffffffff903f18fb down_write+0x5b > > > 0xffffffff8f9d5971 blkdev_llseek+0x31 > > > 0xffffffff8f703322 ksys_lseek+0x72 > > > 0xffffffff8f7033a8 __x64_sys_lseek+0x18 > > > 0xffffffff8f20b983 x64_sys_call+0x1fb3 > > > 0xffffffff903dce5e do_syscall_64+0x7e > > > 0xffffffff9040012b entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76 > > > > Admittedly I'm not familiar with this code, but at a quick glance the > > lock can be just straight up removed here? > > > > 534 static loff_t blkdev_llseek(struct file *file, loff_t offset, int whence) > > 535 { > > 536 │ struct inode *bd_inode = bdev_file_inode(file); > > 537 │ loff_t retval; > > 538 │ > > 539 │ inode_lock(bd_inode); > > 540 │ retval = fixed_size_llseek(file, offset, whence, > > i_size_read(bd_inode)); > > 541 │ inode_unlock(bd_inode); > > 542 │ return retval; > > 543 } > > > > At best it stabilizes the size for the duration of the call. Sounds > > like it helps nothing since if the size can change, the file offset > > will still be altered as if there was no locking? > > > > Suppose this cannot be avoided to grab the size for whatever reason. > > > > While the above fio invocation did not work for me, I ran some crapper > > which I had in my shell history and according to strace: > > [pid 271829] lseek(7, 0, SEEK_SET) = 0 > > [pid 271829] lseek(7, 0, SEEK_SET) = 0 > > [pid 271830] lseek(7, 0, SEEK_SET) = 0 > > > > ... the lseeks just rewind to the beginning, *definitely* not needing > > to know the size. One would have to check but this is most likely the > > case in your test as well. > > > > And for that there is 0 need to grab the size, and consequently the inode lock. > > That is to say bare minimum this needs to be benchmarked before/after > with the lock removed from the picture, like so: Yeah, I've noticed this in the locking profiles as well and I agree bd_inode locking seems unnecessary here. Even some filesystems (e.g. ext4) get away without using inode lock in their llseek handler... Honza > diff --git a/block/fops.c b/block/fops.c > index 2d01c9007681..7f9e9e2f9081 100644 > --- a/block/fops.c > +++ b/block/fops.c > @@ -534,12 +534,8 @@ const struct address_space_operations def_blk_aops = { > static loff_t blkdev_llseek(struct file *file, loff_t offset, int whence) > { > struct inode *bd_inode = bdev_file_inode(file); > - loff_t retval; > > - inode_lock(bd_inode); > - retval = fixed_size_llseek(file, offset, whence, i_size_read(bd_inode)); > - inode_unlock(bd_inode); > - return retval; > + return fixed_size_llseek(file, offset, whence, i_size_read(bd_inode)); > } > > static int blkdev_fsync(struct file *filp, loff_t start, loff_t end, > > To be aborted if it blows up (but I don't see why it would). > > -- > Mateusz Guzik -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR