[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v1 00/13] lru_lock scalability

On 02/02/18 04:18, Daniel Jordan wrote:
> On 02/01/2018 10:54 AM, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On 31/01/18 23:04, wrote:
>>> lru_lock, a per-node* spinlock that protects an LRU list, is one of the
>>> hottest locks in the kernel.  On some workloads on large machines, it
>>> shows up at the top of lock_stat.
>>> One way to improve lru_lock scalability is to introduce an array of
>>> locks,
>>> with each lock protecting certain batches of LRU pages.
>>>          *ooooooooooo**ooooooooooo**ooooooooooo**oooo ...
>>>          |           ||           ||           ||
>>>           \ batch 1 /  \ batch 2 /  \ batch 3 /
>>> In this ASCII depiction of an LRU, a page is represented with either
>>> '*'
>>> or 'o'.  An asterisk indicates a sentinel page, which is a page at the
>>> edge of a batch.  An 'o' indicates a non-sentinel page.
>>> To remove a non-sentinel LRU page, only one lock from the array is
>>> required.  This allows multiple threads to remove pages from different
>>> batches simultaneously.  A sentinel page requires lru_lock in
>>> addition to
>>> a lock from the array.
>>> Full performance numbers appear in the last patch in this series,
>>> but this
>>> prototype allows a microbenchmark to do up to 28% more page faults per
>>> second with 16 or more concurrent processes.
>>> This work was developed in collaboration with Steve Sistare.
>>> Note: This is an early prototype.  I'm submitting it now to support my
>>> request to attend LSF/MM, as well as get early feedback on the
>>> idea.  Any
>>> comments appreciated.
>>> * lru_lock is actually per-memcg, but without memcg's in the picture it
>>>    becomes per-node.
>> GFS2 has an lru list for glocks, which can be contended under certain
>> workloads. Work is still ongoing to figure out exactly why, but this
>> looks like it might be a good approach to that issue too. The main
>> purpose of GFS2's lru list is to allow shrinking of the glocks under
>> memory pressure via the gfs2_scan_glock_lru() function, and it looks
>> like this type of approach could be used there to improve the
>> scalability,
> Glad to hear that this could help in gfs2 as well.
> Hopefully struct gfs2_glock is less space constrained than struct page
> for storing the few bits of metadata that this approach requires.
> Daniel
We obviously want to keep gfs2_glock small, however within reason then
yet we can add some additional fields as required. The use case is
pretty much a standard LRU list, so items are added and removed, mostly
at the active end of the list, and the inactive end of the list is
scanned periodically by gfs2_scan_glock_lru()


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-02 11:51    [W:0.149 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site