LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: new code for 5.15
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 14:40:58 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YTJsOoqaI3FiTkZD@fedora> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whyVPgkAfARB7gMjLEyu0kSxmb6qpqfuE_r6QstAzgHcA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 08:47:42AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 2:18 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > As for new features: we now batch inode inactivations in percpu
> > background threads, which sharply decreases frontend thread wait time
> > when performing file deletions and should improve overall directory tree
> > deletion times.
> 
> So no complaints on this one, but I do have a reaction: we have a lot
> of these random CPU hotplug events, and XFS now added another one.
> 
> I don't see that as a problem, but just the _randomness_ of these
> callbacks makes me go "hmm". And that "enum cpuhp_state" thing isn't
> exactly a thing of beauty, and just makes me think there's something
> nasty going on.
> 
> For the new xfs usage, I really get the feeling that it's not that XFS
> actually cares about the CPU states, but that this is literally tied
> to just having percpu state allocated and active, and that maybe it
> would be sensible to have something more specific to that kind of use.
> 
> We have other things that are very similar in nature - like the page
> allocator percpu caches etc, which for very similar reasons want cpu
> dead/online notification.
> 
> I'm only throwing this out as a reaction to this - I'm not sure
> another interface would be good or worthwhile, but that "enum
> cpuhp_state" is ugly enough that I thought I'd rope in Thomas for CPU
> hotplug, and the percpu memory allocation people for comments.
> 
> IOW, just _maybe_ we would want to have some kind of callback model
> for "percpu_alloc()" and it being explicitly about allocations
> becoming available or going away, rather than about CPU state.
> 
> Comments?
> 

I think there are 2 pieces here from percpu's side:
A) Onlining and offlining state related to a percpu alloc.
B) Freeing backing memory of an allocation wrt hot plug.

An RFC was sent out for B) in [1] and you need A) for B).
I can see percpu having a callback model for basic allocations that are
independent, but for anything more complex, that subsystem would need to
register with hotplug anyway. It appears percpu_counter already has hot
plug support. percpu_refcount could be extended as well, but more
complex initialization like the runqueues and slab related allocations
would require work. In short, yes I think A) is doable/reasonable.

Freeing the backing memory for A) seems trickier. We would have to
figure out a clean way to handle onlining/offlining racing with new
percpu allocations (adding or removing pages for the corresponding cpu's
chunk). To support A), init and onlining/offlining can be separate
phases, but for B) init/freeing would have to be rolled into
onlining/offlining.

Without freeing, it's not incorrect for_each_online_cpu() to read a dead
cpu's percpu values, but with freeing it does.

I guess to summarize, A) seems like it might be a good idea with
init/destruction happening at allocation/freeing times. I'm a little
skeptical of B) in terms of complexity. If y'all think it's a good idea
I can look into it again.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210601065147.53735-1-bharata@linux.ibm.com/

Thanks,
Dennis

> > Lastly, with this release, two new features have graduated to supported
> > status: inode btree counters (for faster mounts), and support for dates
> > beyond Y2038.
> 
> Oh, I had thought Y2038 was already a non-issue for xfs. Silly me.
> 
>               Linus

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-09-03 18:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-31 21:18 Darrick J. Wong
2021-09-02 15:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-09-02 17:43   ` Darrick J. Wong
2021-09-02 22:35     ` Dave Chinner
2021-09-03  6:26       ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-09-05  0:21         ` Dave Chinner
2021-09-05 23:28           ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-09-06  2:11             ` Randy Dunlap
2021-09-06  9:42               ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-09-02 19:13   ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-09-03  4:29     ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-03 18:40   ` Dennis Zhou [this message]
2021-09-02 17:37 ` pr-tracker-bot

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=YTJsOoqaI3FiTkZD@fedora \
    --to=dennis@kernel.org \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --subject='Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: new code for 5.15' \
    /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

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).