From: "Chuck Lever" <cel@kernel.org>
To: tmenninger@purestorage.com
Cc: "Trond Myklebust" <trondmy@kernel.org>,
"Anna Schumaker" <anna@kernel.org>, "Tejun Heo" <tj@kernel.org>,
"Lai Jiangshan" <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Eric Badger" <ebadger@everpuredata.com>,
"Jon Curley" <jcurley@everpuredata.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 6/8] SUNRPC: Reduce rpciod workqueue contention
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2026 11:49:44 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e18e121c-5c05-4caa-96ea-e0886594ee07@slotpi15m67> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260912145926.208269-1-tmenninger@purestorage.com>
On Sat, 12 Sep 2026, Tim Menninger wrote:
> 10-second deltas:
>
> free_fastpath: +49,161,373
> free_slowpath: +70,391,872
> sheaf_flush: +1,582,440
> barn_put: +673,877
> barn_put_fail: +26,374
> barn_get: +673,860
> barn_get_fail: +1,199,576
> alloc_slowpath: 0
Thanks. No worries on the delayed response, IMO there is something
here worth digging out.
Your results confirm the barn-limit theory was wrong. The frees are
bypassing the sheaves.
can_free_to_pcs() refuses any object whose slab is on a different
NUMA node than the freeing CPU. A remote free goes directly to
__slab_free and never refills a barn. With elbencho unpinned and
every CQ on node 0, rpciod on node 0 frees every nfs_page object
that a node 1 thread allocated. That is the 59% slowpath share.
Node 1's barn stays empty, so its allocators refill from partial
slabs via __refill_objects_node and get_partial_node_bulk, the
other two callers under the contended lock. The contention count
fits as well: __slab_free takes list_lock only on a full-to-partial
or partial-to-empty transition, and the bulk refills keep slabs
full.
Still unknown is whether this lock bounds throughput or only
absorbs idle CPU time. __slab_free led the lock profile in both
placements, and the split placement still ran at 46 GB/s.
To separate the two, keep the all-local CQ placement and pin the
workload to node 0:
numactl --cpunodebind=0 --membind=0 elbencho <same args>
Sample the same nfs_page counters and perf lock -l over the same
10-second window. free_slowpath should drop toward zero.
--
Chuck Lever (Come to NFS bake-a-thon! https://nfsv4bat.org)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-12 15:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-31 18:21 [PATCH RFC 0/8] Reduce lock contention in the NFS client Chuck Lever
2026-08-31 18:21 ` [PATCH RFC 1/8] SUNRPC: Use atomic_t for XID allocation Chuck Lever
2026-08-31 18:21 ` [PATCH RFC 2/8] SUNRPC: Execute initial async RPC states in caller's context Chuck Lever
2026-08-31 18:21 ` [PATCH RFC 3/8] SUNRPC: Split recv_lock out of xprt->queue_lock Chuck Lever
2026-08-31 18:22 ` [PATCH RFC 4/8] Set WQ_SYSFS on key NFS-related workqueues Chuck Lever
2026-08-31 18:22 ` [PATCH RFC 5/8] workqueue: Export the functions needed for WQ attribute modification Chuck Lever
2026-08-31 18:22 ` [PATCH RFC 6/8] SUNRPC: Reduce rpciod workqueue contention Chuck Lever
2026-09-02 20:40 ` Tim Menninger
2026-09-03 13:33 ` Chuck Lever
2026-09-03 23:50 ` Tim Menninger
2026-09-04 14:13 ` Chuck Lever
2026-09-04 23:23 ` Tim Menninger
2026-09-06 16:21 ` Chuck Lever
2026-09-08 18:19 ` tmenninger
2026-09-08 21:11 ` Chuck Lever
2026-09-08 23:39 ` tmenninger
2026-09-09 16:14 ` Chuck Lever
2026-09-12 14:59 ` tmenninger
2026-09-12 15:49 ` Chuck Lever [this message]
2026-09-13 13:13 ` tmenninger
2026-09-13 16:40 ` Chuck Lever
2026-09-14 17:39 ` tmenninger
2026-09-15 14:42 ` Chuck Lever
2026-09-16 23:25 ` Tim Menninger
2026-08-31 18:22 ` [PATCH RFC 7/8] NFS: Reduce nfsiod " Chuck Lever
2026-08-31 18:22 ` [PATCH RFC 8/8] SUNRPC: Reduce xprtiod " Chuck Lever
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=e18e121c-5c05-4caa-96ea-e0886594ee07@slotpi15m67 \
--to=cel@kernel.org \
--cc=anna@kernel.org \
--cc=ebadger@everpuredata.com \
--cc=jcurley@everpuredata.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=tmenninger@purestorage.com \
--cc=trondmy@kernel.org \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®