11 Sep, 2013
6 commits
-
We currently use a compile-time constant to size the node array for the
list_lru structure. Due to this, we don't need to allocate any memory at
initialization time. But as a consequence, the structures that contain
embedded list_lru lists can become way too big (the superblock for
instance contains two of them).This patch aims at ameliorating this situation by dynamically allocating
the node arrays with the firmware provided nr_node_ids.Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa
Cc: Dave Chinner
Cc: Mel Gorman
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o"
Cc: Adrian Hunter
Cc: Al Viro
Cc: Artem Bityutskiy
Cc: Arve Hjønnevåg
Cc: Carlos Maiolino
Cc: Christoph Hellwig
Cc: Chuck Lever
Cc: Daniel Vetter
Cc: David Rientjes
Cc: Gleb Natapov
Cc: Greg Thelen
Cc: J. Bruce Fields
Cc: Jan Kara
Cc: Jerome Glisse
Cc: John Stultz
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
Cc: Kent Overstreet
Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti
Cc: Mel Gorman
Cc: Steven Whitehouse
Cc: Thomas Hellstrom
Cc: Trond Myklebust
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Al Viro -
The list_lru implementation has one function, list_lru_dispose_all, with
only one user (the dentry code). At first, such function appears to make
sense because we are really not interested in the result of isolating each
dentry separately - all of them are going away anyway. However, it's
implementation is buggy in the following way:When we call list_lru_dispose_all in fs/dcache.c, we scan all dentries
marking them with DCACHE_SHRINK_LIST. However, this is done without the
nlru->lock taken. The imediate result of that is that someone else may
add or remove the dentry from the LRU at the same time. When list_lru_del
happens in that scenario we will see an element that is not yet marked
with DCACHE_SHRINK_LIST (even though it will be in the future) and
obviously remove it from an lru where the element no longer is. Since
list_lru_dispose_all will in effect count down nlru's nr_items and
list_lru_del will do the same, this will lead to an imbalance.The solution for this would not be so simple: we can obviously just keep
the lru_lock taken, but then we have no guarantees that we will be able to
acquire the dentry lock (dentry->d_lock). To properly solve this, we need
a communication mechanism between the lru and dentry code, so they can
coordinate this with each other.Such mechanism already exists in the form of the list_lru_walk_cb
callback. So it is possible to construct a dcache-side prune function
that does the right thing only by calling list_lru_walk in a loop until no
more dentries are available.With only one user, plus the fact that a sane solution for the problem
would involve boucing between dcache and list_lru anyway, I see little
justification to keep the special case list_lru_dispose_all in tree.Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa
Cc: Michal Hocko
Acked-by: Dave Chinner
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Al Viro -
This patch adapts the list_lru API to accept an optional node argument, to
be used by NUMA aware shrinking functions. Code that does not care about
the NUMA placement of objects can still call into the very same functions
as before. They will simply iterate over all nodes.Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa
Cc: Dave Chinner
Cc: Mel Gorman
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o"
Cc: Adrian Hunter
Cc: Al Viro
Cc: Artem Bityutskiy
Cc: Arve Hjønnevåg
Cc: Carlos Maiolino
Cc: Christoph Hellwig
Cc: Chuck Lever
Cc: Daniel Vetter
Cc: David Rientjes
Cc: Gleb Natapov
Cc: Greg Thelen
Cc: J. Bruce Fields
Cc: Jan Kara
Cc: Jerome Glisse
Cc: John Stultz
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
Cc: Kent Overstreet
Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti
Cc: Mel Gorman
Cc: Steven Whitehouse
Cc: Thomas Hellstrom
Cc: Trond Myklebust
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Al Viro -
The LRU_RETRY code assumes that the list traversal status after we have
dropped and regained the list lock. Unfortunately, this is not a valid
assumption, and that can lead to racing traversals isolating objects that
the other traversal expects to be the next item on the list.This is causing problems with the inode cache shrinker isolation, with
races resulting in an inode on a dispose list being "isolated" because a
racing traversal still thinks it is on the LRU. The inode is then never
reclaimed and that causes hangs if a subsequent lookup on that inode
occurs.Fix it by always restarting the list walk on a LRU_RETRY return from the
isolate callback. Avoid the possibility of livelocks the current code was
trying to avoid by always decrementing the nr_to_walk counter on retries
so that even if we keep hitting the same item on the list we'll eventually
stop trying to walk and exit out of the situation causing the problem.Reported-by: Michal Hocko
Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner
Cc: Glauber Costa
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Al Viro -
Now that we have an LRU list API, we can start to enhance the
implementation. This splits the single LRU list into per-node lists and
locks to enhance scalability. Items are placed on lists according to the
node the memory belongs to. To make scanning the lists efficient, also
track whether the per-node lists have entries in them in a active
nodemask.Note: We use a fixed-size array for the node LRU, this struct can be very
big if MAX_NUMNODES is big. If this becomes a problem this is fixable by
turning this into a pointer and dynamically allocating this to
nr_node_ids. This quantity is firwmare-provided, and still would provide
room for all nodes at the cost of a pointer lookup and an extra
allocation. Because that allocation will most likely come from a may very
well fail.[glommer@openvz.org: fix warnings, added note about node lru]
Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner
Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa
Reviewed-by: Greg Thelen
Acked-by: Mel Gorman
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o"
Cc: Adrian Hunter
Cc: Al Viro
Cc: Artem Bityutskiy
Cc: Arve Hjønnevåg
Cc: Carlos Maiolino
Cc: Christoph Hellwig
Cc: Chuck Lever
Cc: Daniel Vetter
Cc: David Rientjes
Cc: Gleb Natapov
Cc: Greg Thelen
Cc: J. Bruce Fields
Cc: Jan Kara
Cc: Jerome Glisse
Cc: John Stultz
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
Cc: Kent Overstreet
Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti
Cc: Mel Gorman
Cc: Steven Whitehouse
Cc: Thomas Hellstrom
Cc: Trond Myklebust
Signed-off-by: Andrew MortonSigned-off-by: Al Viro
-
Several subsystems use the same construct for LRU lists - a list head, a
spin lock and and item count. They also use exactly the same code for
adding and removing items from the LRU. Create a generic type for these
LRU lists.This is the beginning of generic, node aware LRUs for shrinkers to work
with.[glommer@openvz.org: enum defined constants for lru. Suggested by gthelen, don't relock over retry]
Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner
Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa
Reviewed-by: Greg Thelen
Acked-by: Mel Gorman
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o"
Cc: Adrian Hunter
Cc: Al Viro
Cc: Artem Bityutskiy
Cc: Arve Hjønnevåg
Cc: Carlos Maiolino
Cc: Christoph Hellwig
Cc: Chuck Lever
Cc: Daniel Vetter
Cc: David Rientjes
Cc: Gleb Natapov
Cc: Greg Thelen
Cc: J. Bruce Fields
Cc: Jan Kara
Cc: Jerome Glisse
Cc: John Stultz
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
Cc: Kent Overstreet
Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti
Cc: Mel Gorman
Cc: Steven Whitehouse
Cc: Thomas Hellstrom
Cc: Trond Myklebust
Signed-off-by: Andrew MortonSigned-off-by: Al Viro
