Bug fix: Speed up WB_SYNC_NONE writebacks when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback occurs simultaneously #12790
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
shaan1337
force-pushed
the
fix-zfs-putpage
branch
12 times, most recently
from
8466b2d
to
8970d11
Compare
shaan1337
force-pushed
the
fix-zfs-putpage
branch
7 times, most recently
from
6ae2d88
to
1ea40f7
Compare
|
ZFS test suite results: |
shaan1337
force-pushed
the
fix-zfs-putpage
branch
from
1ea40f7
to
8e9b1a2
Compare
|
ok, ready for review. the last push just added tracepoints for the new counters so it shouldn't affect the zfs test suite results. some things I've not tested yet:
|
shaan1337
force-pushed
the
fix-zfs-putpage
branch
from
8e9b1a2
to
f02f991
Compare
|
@shaan1337: in practice, does this end up increasing the number of IOPs issued to backing drives, and is there any increase in the number of partial-dnode-writes in the event that there are more sync-outs of small data volumes which may impact space efficiency over time? |
|
@sempervictus in the absence of a concurrent The fix works by calling zil_commit() whenever there are concurrent WB_SYNC_ALL and WB_SYNC_NONE writebacks. So in principle, it should not affect the layers underneath in any negative way. Even if there are extra zil_commit() calls, they would be without effect most of the time since the transactions in the queue would have already been committed. Also, in practice the issue itself (simultaneous WB_SYNC_NONE and WB_SYNC_ALL writebacks) occurs very rarely (~once per day on a busy system with continuous writes), so the extra zil_commit(), if any, will be negligible. |
|
@sempervictus one important case worth mentioning though is when you're doing a partial msync of a file. since we keep track of active sync/non-sync page writes at the znode level (not at the page level), this means that all dirty pages related to the file will be written to stable storage in the event of a concurrent WB_SYNC_NONE and WB_SYNC_ALL writeback. This would apply mainly when one or more parts of a file are msync-ed for data integrity purposes while the other parts are not (they are left to the OS to write back). I'm not sure how common this pattern is. |
Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com>
Yup, i've just rebased it.
noted 👍 |
behlendorf
added
Status: Accepted
nicman23
pushed a commit
to nicman23/zfs
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 22, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
nicman23
pushed a commit
to nicman23/zfs
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 22, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
lundman
pushed a commit
to openzfsonwindows/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 12, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
beren12
pushed a commit
to beren12/zfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 19, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
andrewc12
pushed a commit
to andrewc12/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
andrewc12
pushed a commit
to andrewc12/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
andrewc12
pushed a commit
to andrewc12/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
andrewc12
pushed a commit
to andrewc12/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
andrewc12
pushed a commit
to andrewc12/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
andrewc12
pushed a commit
to andrewc12/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
andrewc12
pushed a commit
to andrewc12/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
andrewc12
pushed a commit
to andrewc12/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
andrewc12
pushed a commit
to andrewc12/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
andrewc12
pushed a commit
to andrewc12/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
andrewc12
pushed a commit
to andrewc12/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
andrewc12
pushed a commit
to andrewc12/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
andrewc12
pushed a commit
to andrewc12/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
andrewc12
pushed a commit
to andrewc12/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
andrewc12
pushed a commit
to andrewc12/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
andrewc12
pushed a commit
to andrewc12/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
andrewc12
pushed a commit
to andrewc12/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
andrewc12
pushed a commit
to andrewc12/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
behlendorf
pushed a commit
to behlendorf/zfs
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 2, 2023
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes openzfs#12662 Closes openzfs#12790
tonyhutter
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 5, 2023
Page writebacks with WB_SYNC_NONE can take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback with WB_SYNC_ALL (e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up to zfs_txg_timeout) due to the active WB_SYNC_NONE writeback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared. This commit deals with 2 cases: - No page writeback is active. A WB_SYNC_ALL page writeback starts and even completes. But when it's about to check if the PG_writeback bit has been cleared, another writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE starts. The sync page writeback ends up waiting for the non-sync page writeback to complete. - A page writeback with WB_SYNC_NONE is already active when a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback starts. The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback. The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and committing when beneficial. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Shaan Nobee <sniper111@gmail.com> Closes #12662 Closes #12790
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation and Context
Fixes #12662
Description
Page writebacks with
WB_SYNC_NONEcan take several seconds to complete since they wait for the transaction group to close before being committed. This is usually not a problem since the caller does not need to wait. However, if we're simultaneously doing a writeback withWB_SYNC_ALL(e.g via msync), the latter can block for several seconds (up tozfs_txg_timeout) due to the activeWB_SYNC_NONEwriteback since it needs to wait for the transaction to complete and the PG_writeback bit to be cleared.This PR deals with 2 cases:
One such example is a race condition that can occur in the linux kernel in filemap_write_and_wait_range(). Between the call to
__filemap_fdatawrite_rangeand the call tofilemap_fdatawait_range, it is possible that the WB_SYNC_ALL writeback completes, and another WB_SYNC_NONE writeback starts (e.g a background writeback by the kernel). The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback then ends up waiting for the WB_SYNC_NONE's writeback to complete.One such example can occur if a WB_SYNC_NONE writeback starts at this point:
zfs/module/os/linux/zfs/zpl_file.c
Line 167 in ddc026f
If a WB_SYNC_NONE writeback starts before entering filemap_write_and_wait_range and manages to clear the dirty flags on the page, the filemap_write_and_wait_range call will make an early return here in __filemap_fdatawrite_range:
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/cb690f5238d71f543f4ce874aa59237cf53a877c/mm/filemap.c#L403
The function then calls filemap_fdatawait_range() and it'll wait for several seconds.
Both of the above cases have been identified with the repro application (included as a failing test) and through tracing.
The fix works by carefully keeping track of active sync/non-sync writebacks and makes sure that:
i) a sync writeback will speed up any active non-sync writeback by doing a commit
ii) a non-sync writeback will speed itself up by doing a commit if there are any active sync writebacks
How Has This Been Tested?
Types of changes
Checklist:
Signed-off-by.