WSL2-Linux-Kernel/fs/btrfs/locking.c

289 строки
6.6 KiB
C
Исходник Обычный вид История

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
/*
* Copyright (C) 2008 Oracle. All rights reserved.
*/
#include <linux/sched.h>
#include <linux/pagemap.h>
#include <linux/spinlock.h>
#include <linux/page-flags.h>
#include <asm/bug.h>
#include "misc.h"
#include "ctree.h"
#include "extent_io.h"
#include "locking.h"
/*
* Extent buffer locking
* =====================
*
btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the tree. For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll likely become available soon. At the time this code was written the rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of magnitude slower than our home grown locking. However now the opposite is the case. There are a few problems with how we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order. This leads to some suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly contended cases. The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also have adaptive spinning that works relatively well. The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep. So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and simply use a rw_semaphore for everything. This makes the locking much simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking transitions. The performance numbers vary depending on the workload, because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention on the btree. However, on my test system which is an 80 core single socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the following results (with all debug options off): dbench 200 baseline Throughput 216.056 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=1471.197 ms dbench 200 with patch Throughput 737.188 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=714.346 ms Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough tasks to really stress the locking fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16 baseline Average Files/sec: 160166.7 p50 Files/sec: 165832 p90 Files/sec: 123886 p99 Files/sec: 123495 real 3m26.527s user 2m19.223s sys 48m21.856s patched Average Files/sec: 164135.7 p50 Files/sec: 171095 p90 Files/sec: 122889 p99 Files/sec: 113819 real 3m29.660s user 2m19.990s sys 44m12.259s Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-08-20 18:46:09 +03:00
* We use a rw_semaphore for tree locking, and the semantics are exactly the
* same:
*
* - reader/writer exclusion
* - writer/writer exclusion
* - reader/reader sharing
* - try-lock semantics for readers and writers
*
* The rwsem implementation does opportunistic spinning which reduces number of
* times the locking task needs to sleep.
*/
Btrfs: Change btree locking to use explicit blocking points Most of the btrfs metadata operations can be protected by a spinlock, but some operations still need to schedule. So far, btrfs has been using a mutex along with a trylock loop, most of the time it is able to avoid going for the full mutex, so the trylock loop is a big performance gain. This commit is step one for getting rid of the blocking locks entirely. btrfs_tree_lock takes a spinlock, and the code explicitly switches to a blocking lock when it starts an operation that can schedule. We'll be able get rid of the blocking locks in smaller pieces over time. Tracing allows us to find the most common cause of blocking, so we can start with the hot spots first. The basic idea is: btrfs_tree_lock() returns with the spin lock held btrfs_set_lock_blocking() sets the EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING bit in the extent buffer flags, and then drops the spin lock. The buffer is still considered locked by all of the btrfs code. If btrfs_tree_lock gets the spinlock but finds the blocking bit set, it drops the spin lock and waits on a wait queue for the blocking bit to go away. Much of the code that needs to set the blocking bit finishes without actually blocking a good percentage of the time. So, an adaptive spin is still used against the blocking bit to avoid very high context switch rates. btrfs_clear_lock_blocking() clears the blocking bit and returns with the spinlock held again. btrfs_tree_unlock() can be called on either blocking or spinning locks, it does the right thing based on the blocking bit. ctree.c has a helper function to set/clear all the locked buffers in a path as blocking. Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
2009-02-04 17:25:08 +03:00
/*
btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the tree. For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll likely become available soon. At the time this code was written the rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of magnitude slower than our home grown locking. However now the opposite is the case. There are a few problems with how we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order. This leads to some suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly contended cases. The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also have adaptive spinning that works relatively well. The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep. So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and simply use a rw_semaphore for everything. This makes the locking much simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking transitions. The performance numbers vary depending on the workload, because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention on the btree. However, on my test system which is an 80 core single socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the following results (with all debug options off): dbench 200 baseline Throughput 216.056 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=1471.197 ms dbench 200 with patch Throughput 737.188 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=714.346 ms Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough tasks to really stress the locking fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16 baseline Average Files/sec: 160166.7 p50 Files/sec: 165832 p90 Files/sec: 123886 p99 Files/sec: 123495 real 3m26.527s user 2m19.223s sys 48m21.856s patched Average Files/sec: 164135.7 p50 Files/sec: 171095 p90 Files/sec: 122889 p99 Files/sec: 113819 real 3m29.660s user 2m19.990s sys 44m12.259s Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-08-20 18:46:09 +03:00
* __btrfs_tree_read_lock - lock extent buffer for read
* @eb: the eb to be locked
* @nest: the nesting level to be used for lockdep
*
btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the tree. For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll likely become available soon. At the time this code was written the rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of magnitude slower than our home grown locking. However now the opposite is the case. There are a few problems with how we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order. This leads to some suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly contended cases. The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also have adaptive spinning that works relatively well. The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep. So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and simply use a rw_semaphore for everything. This makes the locking much simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking transitions. The performance numbers vary depending on the workload, because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention on the btree. However, on my test system which is an 80 core single socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the following results (with all debug options off): dbench 200 baseline Throughput 216.056 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=1471.197 ms dbench 200 with patch Throughput 737.188 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=714.346 ms Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough tasks to really stress the locking fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16 baseline Average Files/sec: 160166.7 p50 Files/sec: 165832 p90 Files/sec: 123886 p99 Files/sec: 123495 real 3m26.527s user 2m19.223s sys 48m21.856s patched Average Files/sec: 164135.7 p50 Files/sec: 171095 p90 Files/sec: 122889 p99 Files/sec: 113819 real 3m29.660s user 2m19.990s sys 44m12.259s Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-08-20 18:46:09 +03:00
* This takes the read lock on the extent buffer, using the specified nesting
* level for lockdep purposes.
Btrfs: Change btree locking to use explicit blocking points Most of the btrfs metadata operations can be protected by a spinlock, but some operations still need to schedule. So far, btrfs has been using a mutex along with a trylock loop, most of the time it is able to avoid going for the full mutex, so the trylock loop is a big performance gain. This commit is step one for getting rid of the blocking locks entirely. btrfs_tree_lock takes a spinlock, and the code explicitly switches to a blocking lock when it starts an operation that can schedule. We'll be able get rid of the blocking locks in smaller pieces over time. Tracing allows us to find the most common cause of blocking, so we can start with the hot spots first. The basic idea is: btrfs_tree_lock() returns with the spin lock held btrfs_set_lock_blocking() sets the EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING bit in the extent buffer flags, and then drops the spin lock. The buffer is still considered locked by all of the btrfs code. If btrfs_tree_lock gets the spinlock but finds the blocking bit set, it drops the spin lock and waits on a wait queue for the blocking bit to go away. Much of the code that needs to set the blocking bit finishes without actually blocking a good percentage of the time. So, an adaptive spin is still used against the blocking bit to avoid very high context switch rates. btrfs_clear_lock_blocking() clears the blocking bit and returns with the spinlock held again. btrfs_tree_unlock() can be called on either blocking or spinning locks, it does the right thing based on the blocking bit. ctree.c has a helper function to set/clear all the locked buffers in a path as blocking. Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
2009-02-04 17:25:08 +03:00
*/
void __btrfs_tree_read_lock(struct extent_buffer *eb, enum btrfs_lock_nesting nest)
Btrfs: Change btree locking to use explicit blocking points Most of the btrfs metadata operations can be protected by a spinlock, but some operations still need to schedule. So far, btrfs has been using a mutex along with a trylock loop, most of the time it is able to avoid going for the full mutex, so the trylock loop is a big performance gain. This commit is step one for getting rid of the blocking locks entirely. btrfs_tree_lock takes a spinlock, and the code explicitly switches to a blocking lock when it starts an operation that can schedule. We'll be able get rid of the blocking locks in smaller pieces over time. Tracing allows us to find the most common cause of blocking, so we can start with the hot spots first. The basic idea is: btrfs_tree_lock() returns with the spin lock held btrfs_set_lock_blocking() sets the EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING bit in the extent buffer flags, and then drops the spin lock. The buffer is still considered locked by all of the btrfs code. If btrfs_tree_lock gets the spinlock but finds the blocking bit set, it drops the spin lock and waits on a wait queue for the blocking bit to go away. Much of the code that needs to set the blocking bit finishes without actually blocking a good percentage of the time. So, an adaptive spin is still used against the blocking bit to avoid very high context switch rates. btrfs_clear_lock_blocking() clears the blocking bit and returns with the spinlock held again. btrfs_tree_unlock() can be called on either blocking or spinning locks, it does the right thing based on the blocking bit. ctree.c has a helper function to set/clear all the locked buffers in a path as blocking. Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
2009-02-04 17:25:08 +03:00
{
u64 start_ns = 0;
if (trace_btrfs_tree_read_lock_enabled())
start_ns = ktime_get_ns();
btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the tree. For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll likely become available soon. At the time this code was written the rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of magnitude slower than our home grown locking. However now the opposite is the case. There are a few problems with how we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order. This leads to some suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly contended cases. The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also have adaptive spinning that works relatively well. The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep. So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and simply use a rw_semaphore for everything. This makes the locking much simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking transitions. The performance numbers vary depending on the workload, because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention on the btree. However, on my test system which is an 80 core single socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the following results (with all debug options off): dbench 200 baseline Throughput 216.056 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=1471.197 ms dbench 200 with patch Throughput 737.188 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=714.346 ms Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough tasks to really stress the locking fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16 baseline Average Files/sec: 160166.7 p50 Files/sec: 165832 p90 Files/sec: 123886 p99 Files/sec: 123495 real 3m26.527s user 2m19.223s sys 48m21.856s patched Average Files/sec: 164135.7 p50 Files/sec: 171095 p90 Files/sec: 122889 p99 Files/sec: 113819 real 3m29.660s user 2m19.990s sys 44m12.259s Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-08-20 18:46:09 +03:00
down_read_nested(&eb->lock, nest);
trace_btrfs_tree_read_lock(eb, start_ns);
Btrfs: Change btree locking to use explicit blocking points Most of the btrfs metadata operations can be protected by a spinlock, but some operations still need to schedule. So far, btrfs has been using a mutex along with a trylock loop, most of the time it is able to avoid going for the full mutex, so the trylock loop is a big performance gain. This commit is step one for getting rid of the blocking locks entirely. btrfs_tree_lock takes a spinlock, and the code explicitly switches to a blocking lock when it starts an operation that can schedule. We'll be able get rid of the blocking locks in smaller pieces over time. Tracing allows us to find the most common cause of blocking, so we can start with the hot spots first. The basic idea is: btrfs_tree_lock() returns with the spin lock held btrfs_set_lock_blocking() sets the EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING bit in the extent buffer flags, and then drops the spin lock. The buffer is still considered locked by all of the btrfs code. If btrfs_tree_lock gets the spinlock but finds the blocking bit set, it drops the spin lock and waits on a wait queue for the blocking bit to go away. Much of the code that needs to set the blocking bit finishes without actually blocking a good percentage of the time. So, an adaptive spin is still used against the blocking bit to avoid very high context switch rates. btrfs_clear_lock_blocking() clears the blocking bit and returns with the spinlock held again. btrfs_tree_unlock() can be called on either blocking or spinning locks, it does the right thing based on the blocking bit. ctree.c has a helper function to set/clear all the locked buffers in a path as blocking. Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
2009-02-04 17:25:08 +03:00
}
void btrfs_tree_read_lock(struct extent_buffer *eb)
{
__btrfs_tree_read_lock(eb, BTRFS_NESTING_NORMAL);
}
Btrfs: Change btree locking to use explicit blocking points Most of the btrfs metadata operations can be protected by a spinlock, but some operations still need to schedule. So far, btrfs has been using a mutex along with a trylock loop, most of the time it is able to avoid going for the full mutex, so the trylock loop is a big performance gain. This commit is step one for getting rid of the blocking locks entirely. btrfs_tree_lock takes a spinlock, and the code explicitly switches to a blocking lock when it starts an operation that can schedule. We'll be able get rid of the blocking locks in smaller pieces over time. Tracing allows us to find the most common cause of blocking, so we can start with the hot spots first. The basic idea is: btrfs_tree_lock() returns with the spin lock held btrfs_set_lock_blocking() sets the EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING bit in the extent buffer flags, and then drops the spin lock. The buffer is still considered locked by all of the btrfs code. If btrfs_tree_lock gets the spinlock but finds the blocking bit set, it drops the spin lock and waits on a wait queue for the blocking bit to go away. Much of the code that needs to set the blocking bit finishes without actually blocking a good percentage of the time. So, an adaptive spin is still used against the blocking bit to avoid very high context switch rates. btrfs_clear_lock_blocking() clears the blocking bit and returns with the spinlock held again. btrfs_tree_unlock() can be called on either blocking or spinning locks, it does the right thing based on the blocking bit. ctree.c has a helper function to set/clear all the locked buffers in a path as blocking. Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
2009-02-04 17:25:08 +03:00
/*
btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the tree. For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll likely become available soon. At the time this code was written the rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of magnitude slower than our home grown locking. However now the opposite is the case. There are a few problems with how we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order. This leads to some suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly contended cases. The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also have adaptive spinning that works relatively well. The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep. So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and simply use a rw_semaphore for everything. This makes the locking much simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking transitions. The performance numbers vary depending on the workload, because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention on the btree. However, on my test system which is an 80 core single socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the following results (with all debug options off): dbench 200 baseline Throughput 216.056 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=1471.197 ms dbench 200 with patch Throughput 737.188 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=714.346 ms Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough tasks to really stress the locking fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16 baseline Average Files/sec: 160166.7 p50 Files/sec: 165832 p90 Files/sec: 123886 p99 Files/sec: 123495 real 3m26.527s user 2m19.223s sys 48m21.856s patched Average Files/sec: 164135.7 p50 Files/sec: 171095 p90 Files/sec: 122889 p99 Files/sec: 113819 real 3m29.660s user 2m19.990s sys 44m12.259s Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-08-20 18:46:09 +03:00
* Try-lock for read.
*
* Return 1 if the rwlock has been taken, 0 otherwise
Btrfs: Change btree locking to use explicit blocking points Most of the btrfs metadata operations can be protected by a spinlock, but some operations still need to schedule. So far, btrfs has been using a mutex along with a trylock loop, most of the time it is able to avoid going for the full mutex, so the trylock loop is a big performance gain. This commit is step one for getting rid of the blocking locks entirely. btrfs_tree_lock takes a spinlock, and the code explicitly switches to a blocking lock when it starts an operation that can schedule. We'll be able get rid of the blocking locks in smaller pieces over time. Tracing allows us to find the most common cause of blocking, so we can start with the hot spots first. The basic idea is: btrfs_tree_lock() returns with the spin lock held btrfs_set_lock_blocking() sets the EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING bit in the extent buffer flags, and then drops the spin lock. The buffer is still considered locked by all of the btrfs code. If btrfs_tree_lock gets the spinlock but finds the blocking bit set, it drops the spin lock and waits on a wait queue for the blocking bit to go away. Much of the code that needs to set the blocking bit finishes without actually blocking a good percentage of the time. So, an adaptive spin is still used against the blocking bit to avoid very high context switch rates. btrfs_clear_lock_blocking() clears the blocking bit and returns with the spinlock held again. btrfs_tree_unlock() can be called on either blocking or spinning locks, it does the right thing based on the blocking bit. ctree.c has a helper function to set/clear all the locked buffers in a path as blocking. Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
2009-02-04 17:25:08 +03:00
*/
int btrfs_try_tree_read_lock(struct extent_buffer *eb)
Btrfs: Change btree locking to use explicit blocking points Most of the btrfs metadata operations can be protected by a spinlock, but some operations still need to schedule. So far, btrfs has been using a mutex along with a trylock loop, most of the time it is able to avoid going for the full mutex, so the trylock loop is a big performance gain. This commit is step one for getting rid of the blocking locks entirely. btrfs_tree_lock takes a spinlock, and the code explicitly switches to a blocking lock when it starts an operation that can schedule. We'll be able get rid of the blocking locks in smaller pieces over time. Tracing allows us to find the most common cause of blocking, so we can start with the hot spots first. The basic idea is: btrfs_tree_lock() returns with the spin lock held btrfs_set_lock_blocking() sets the EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING bit in the extent buffer flags, and then drops the spin lock. The buffer is still considered locked by all of the btrfs code. If btrfs_tree_lock gets the spinlock but finds the blocking bit set, it drops the spin lock and waits on a wait queue for the blocking bit to go away. Much of the code that needs to set the blocking bit finishes without actually blocking a good percentage of the time. So, an adaptive spin is still used against the blocking bit to avoid very high context switch rates. btrfs_clear_lock_blocking() clears the blocking bit and returns with the spinlock held again. btrfs_tree_unlock() can be called on either blocking or spinning locks, it does the right thing based on the blocking bit. ctree.c has a helper function to set/clear all the locked buffers in a path as blocking. Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
2009-02-04 17:25:08 +03:00
{
btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the tree. For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll likely become available soon. At the time this code was written the rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of magnitude slower than our home grown locking. However now the opposite is the case. There are a few problems with how we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order. This leads to some suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly contended cases. The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also have adaptive spinning that works relatively well. The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep. So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and simply use a rw_semaphore for everything. This makes the locking much simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking transitions. The performance numbers vary depending on the workload, because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention on the btree. However, on my test system which is an 80 core single socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the following results (with all debug options off): dbench 200 baseline Throughput 216.056 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=1471.197 ms dbench 200 with patch Throughput 737.188 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=714.346 ms Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough tasks to really stress the locking fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16 baseline Average Files/sec: 160166.7 p50 Files/sec: 165832 p90 Files/sec: 123886 p99 Files/sec: 123495 real 3m26.527s user 2m19.223s sys 48m21.856s patched Average Files/sec: 164135.7 p50 Files/sec: 171095 p90 Files/sec: 122889 p99 Files/sec: 113819 real 3m29.660s user 2m19.990s sys 44m12.259s Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-08-20 18:46:09 +03:00
if (down_read_trylock(&eb->lock)) {
trace_btrfs_try_tree_read_lock(eb);
return 1;
}
btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the tree. For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll likely become available soon. At the time this code was written the rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of magnitude slower than our home grown locking. However now the opposite is the case. There are a few problems with how we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order. This leads to some suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly contended cases. The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also have adaptive spinning that works relatively well. The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep. So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and simply use a rw_semaphore for everything. This makes the locking much simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking transitions. The performance numbers vary depending on the workload, because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention on the btree. However, on my test system which is an 80 core single socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the following results (with all debug options off): dbench 200 baseline Throughput 216.056 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=1471.197 ms dbench 200 with patch Throughput 737.188 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=714.346 ms Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough tasks to really stress the locking fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16 baseline Average Files/sec: 160166.7 p50 Files/sec: 165832 p90 Files/sec: 123886 p99 Files/sec: 123495 real 3m26.527s user 2m19.223s sys 48m21.856s patched Average Files/sec: 164135.7 p50 Files/sec: 171095 p90 Files/sec: 122889 p99 Files/sec: 113819 real 3m29.660s user 2m19.990s sys 44m12.259s Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-08-20 18:46:09 +03:00
return 0;
Btrfs: Change btree locking to use explicit blocking points Most of the btrfs metadata operations can be protected by a spinlock, but some operations still need to schedule. So far, btrfs has been using a mutex along with a trylock loop, most of the time it is able to avoid going for the full mutex, so the trylock loop is a big performance gain. This commit is step one for getting rid of the blocking locks entirely. btrfs_tree_lock takes a spinlock, and the code explicitly switches to a blocking lock when it starts an operation that can schedule. We'll be able get rid of the blocking locks in smaller pieces over time. Tracing allows us to find the most common cause of blocking, so we can start with the hot spots first. The basic idea is: btrfs_tree_lock() returns with the spin lock held btrfs_set_lock_blocking() sets the EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING bit in the extent buffer flags, and then drops the spin lock. The buffer is still considered locked by all of the btrfs code. If btrfs_tree_lock gets the spinlock but finds the blocking bit set, it drops the spin lock and waits on a wait queue for the blocking bit to go away. Much of the code that needs to set the blocking bit finishes without actually blocking a good percentage of the time. So, an adaptive spin is still used against the blocking bit to avoid very high context switch rates. btrfs_clear_lock_blocking() clears the blocking bit and returns with the spinlock held again. btrfs_tree_unlock() can be called on either blocking or spinning locks, it does the right thing based on the blocking bit. ctree.c has a helper function to set/clear all the locked buffers in a path as blocking. Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
2009-02-04 17:25:08 +03:00
}
/*
btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the tree. For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll likely become available soon. At the time this code was written the rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of magnitude slower than our home grown locking. However now the opposite is the case. There are a few problems with how we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order. This leads to some suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly contended cases. The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also have adaptive spinning that works relatively well. The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep. So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and simply use a rw_semaphore for everything. This makes the locking much simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking transitions. The performance numbers vary depending on the workload, because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention on the btree. However, on my test system which is an 80 core single socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the following results (with all debug options off): dbench 200 baseline Throughput 216.056 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=1471.197 ms dbench 200 with patch Throughput 737.188 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=714.346 ms Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough tasks to really stress the locking fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16 baseline Average Files/sec: 160166.7 p50 Files/sec: 165832 p90 Files/sec: 123886 p99 Files/sec: 123495 real 3m26.527s user 2m19.223s sys 48m21.856s patched Average Files/sec: 164135.7 p50 Files/sec: 171095 p90 Files/sec: 122889 p99 Files/sec: 113819 real 3m29.660s user 2m19.990s sys 44m12.259s Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-08-20 18:46:09 +03:00
* Try-lock for write.
*
* Return 1 if the rwlock has been taken, 0 otherwise
Btrfs: Change btree locking to use explicit blocking points Most of the btrfs metadata operations can be protected by a spinlock, but some operations still need to schedule. So far, btrfs has been using a mutex along with a trylock loop, most of the time it is able to avoid going for the full mutex, so the trylock loop is a big performance gain. This commit is step one for getting rid of the blocking locks entirely. btrfs_tree_lock takes a spinlock, and the code explicitly switches to a blocking lock when it starts an operation that can schedule. We'll be able get rid of the blocking locks in smaller pieces over time. Tracing allows us to find the most common cause of blocking, so we can start with the hot spots first. The basic idea is: btrfs_tree_lock() returns with the spin lock held btrfs_set_lock_blocking() sets the EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING bit in the extent buffer flags, and then drops the spin lock. The buffer is still considered locked by all of the btrfs code. If btrfs_tree_lock gets the spinlock but finds the blocking bit set, it drops the spin lock and waits on a wait queue for the blocking bit to go away. Much of the code that needs to set the blocking bit finishes without actually blocking a good percentage of the time. So, an adaptive spin is still used against the blocking bit to avoid very high context switch rates. btrfs_clear_lock_blocking() clears the blocking bit and returns with the spinlock held again. btrfs_tree_unlock() can be called on either blocking or spinning locks, it does the right thing based on the blocking bit. ctree.c has a helper function to set/clear all the locked buffers in a path as blocking. Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
2009-02-04 17:25:08 +03:00
*/
int btrfs_try_tree_write_lock(struct extent_buffer *eb)
Btrfs: Change btree locking to use explicit blocking points Most of the btrfs metadata operations can be protected by a spinlock, but some operations still need to schedule. So far, btrfs has been using a mutex along with a trylock loop, most of the time it is able to avoid going for the full mutex, so the trylock loop is a big performance gain. This commit is step one for getting rid of the blocking locks entirely. btrfs_tree_lock takes a spinlock, and the code explicitly switches to a blocking lock when it starts an operation that can schedule. We'll be able get rid of the blocking locks in smaller pieces over time. Tracing allows us to find the most common cause of blocking, so we can start with the hot spots first. The basic idea is: btrfs_tree_lock() returns with the spin lock held btrfs_set_lock_blocking() sets the EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING bit in the extent buffer flags, and then drops the spin lock. The buffer is still considered locked by all of the btrfs code. If btrfs_tree_lock gets the spinlock but finds the blocking bit set, it drops the spin lock and waits on a wait queue for the blocking bit to go away. Much of the code that needs to set the blocking bit finishes without actually blocking a good percentage of the time. So, an adaptive spin is still used against the blocking bit to avoid very high context switch rates. btrfs_clear_lock_blocking() clears the blocking bit and returns with the spinlock held again. btrfs_tree_unlock() can be called on either blocking or spinning locks, it does the right thing based on the blocking bit. ctree.c has a helper function to set/clear all the locked buffers in a path as blocking. Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
2009-02-04 17:25:08 +03:00
{
btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the tree. For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll likely become available soon. At the time this code was written the rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of magnitude slower than our home grown locking. However now the opposite is the case. There are a few problems with how we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order. This leads to some suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly contended cases. The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also have adaptive spinning that works relatively well. The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep. So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and simply use a rw_semaphore for everything. This makes the locking much simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking transitions. The performance numbers vary depending on the workload, because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention on the btree. However, on my test system which is an 80 core single socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the following results (with all debug options off): dbench 200 baseline Throughput 216.056 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=1471.197 ms dbench 200 with patch Throughput 737.188 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=714.346 ms Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough tasks to really stress the locking fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16 baseline Average Files/sec: 160166.7 p50 Files/sec: 165832 p90 Files/sec: 123886 p99 Files/sec: 123495 real 3m26.527s user 2m19.223s sys 48m21.856s patched Average Files/sec: 164135.7 p50 Files/sec: 171095 p90 Files/sec: 122889 p99 Files/sec: 113819 real 3m29.660s user 2m19.990s sys 44m12.259s Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-08-20 18:46:09 +03:00
if (down_write_trylock(&eb->lock)) {
eb->lock_owner = current->pid;
trace_btrfs_try_tree_write_lock(eb);
return 1;
}
btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the tree. For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll likely become available soon. At the time this code was written the rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of magnitude slower than our home grown locking. However now the opposite is the case. There are a few problems with how we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order. This leads to some suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly contended cases. The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also have adaptive spinning that works relatively well. The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep. So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and simply use a rw_semaphore for everything. This makes the locking much simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking transitions. The performance numbers vary depending on the workload, because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention on the btree. However, on my test system which is an 80 core single socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the following results (with all debug options off): dbench 200 baseline Throughput 216.056 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=1471.197 ms dbench 200 with patch Throughput 737.188 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=714.346 ms Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough tasks to really stress the locking fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16 baseline Average Files/sec: 160166.7 p50 Files/sec: 165832 p90 Files/sec: 123886 p99 Files/sec: 123495 real 3m26.527s user 2m19.223s sys 48m21.856s patched Average Files/sec: 164135.7 p50 Files/sec: 171095 p90 Files/sec: 122889 p99 Files/sec: 113819 real 3m29.660s user 2m19.990s sys 44m12.259s Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-08-20 18:46:09 +03:00
return 0;
Btrfs: Change btree locking to use explicit blocking points Most of the btrfs metadata operations can be protected by a spinlock, but some operations still need to schedule. So far, btrfs has been using a mutex along with a trylock loop, most of the time it is able to avoid going for the full mutex, so the trylock loop is a big performance gain. This commit is step one for getting rid of the blocking locks entirely. btrfs_tree_lock takes a spinlock, and the code explicitly switches to a blocking lock when it starts an operation that can schedule. We'll be able get rid of the blocking locks in smaller pieces over time. Tracing allows us to find the most common cause of blocking, so we can start with the hot spots first. The basic idea is: btrfs_tree_lock() returns with the spin lock held btrfs_set_lock_blocking() sets the EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING bit in the extent buffer flags, and then drops the spin lock. The buffer is still considered locked by all of the btrfs code. If btrfs_tree_lock gets the spinlock but finds the blocking bit set, it drops the spin lock and waits on a wait queue for the blocking bit to go away. Much of the code that needs to set the blocking bit finishes without actually blocking a good percentage of the time. So, an adaptive spin is still used against the blocking bit to avoid very high context switch rates. btrfs_clear_lock_blocking() clears the blocking bit and returns with the spinlock held again. btrfs_tree_unlock() can be called on either blocking or spinning locks, it does the right thing based on the blocking bit. ctree.c has a helper function to set/clear all the locked buffers in a path as blocking. Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
2009-02-04 17:25:08 +03:00
}
/*
* Release read lock.
*/
void btrfs_tree_read_unlock(struct extent_buffer *eb)
{
trace_btrfs_tree_read_unlock(eb);
btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the tree. For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll likely become available soon. At the time this code was written the rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of magnitude slower than our home grown locking. However now the opposite is the case. There are a few problems with how we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order. This leads to some suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly contended cases. The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also have adaptive spinning that works relatively well. The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep. So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and simply use a rw_semaphore for everything. This makes the locking much simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking transitions. The performance numbers vary depending on the workload, because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention on the btree. However, on my test system which is an 80 core single socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the following results (with all debug options off): dbench 200 baseline Throughput 216.056 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=1471.197 ms dbench 200 with patch Throughput 737.188 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=714.346 ms Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough tasks to really stress the locking fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16 baseline Average Files/sec: 160166.7 p50 Files/sec: 165832 p90 Files/sec: 123886 p99 Files/sec: 123495 real 3m26.527s user 2m19.223s sys 48m21.856s patched Average Files/sec: 164135.7 p50 Files/sec: 171095 p90 Files/sec: 122889 p99 Files/sec: 113819 real 3m29.660s user 2m19.990s sys 44m12.259s Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-08-20 18:46:09 +03:00
up_read(&eb->lock);
}
/*
btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the tree. For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll likely become available soon. At the time this code was written the rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of magnitude slower than our home grown locking. However now the opposite is the case. There are a few problems with how we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order. This leads to some suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly contended cases. The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also have adaptive spinning that works relatively well. The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep. So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and simply use a rw_semaphore for everything. This makes the locking much simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking transitions. The performance numbers vary depending on the workload, because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention on the btree. However, on my test system which is an 80 core single socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the following results (with all debug options off): dbench 200 baseline Throughput 216.056 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=1471.197 ms dbench 200 with patch Throughput 737.188 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=714.346 ms Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough tasks to really stress the locking fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16 baseline Average Files/sec: 160166.7 p50 Files/sec: 165832 p90 Files/sec: 123886 p99 Files/sec: 123495 real 3m26.527s user 2m19.223s sys 48m21.856s patched Average Files/sec: 164135.7 p50 Files/sec: 171095 p90 Files/sec: 122889 p99 Files/sec: 113819 real 3m29.660s user 2m19.990s sys 44m12.259s Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-08-20 18:46:09 +03:00
* __btrfs_tree_lock - lock eb for write
* @eb: the eb to lock
* @nest: the nesting to use for the lock
*
btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the tree. For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll likely become available soon. At the time this code was written the rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of magnitude slower than our home grown locking. However now the opposite is the case. There are a few problems with how we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order. This leads to some suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly contended cases. The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also have adaptive spinning that works relatively well. The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep. So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and simply use a rw_semaphore for everything. This makes the locking much simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking transitions. The performance numbers vary depending on the workload, because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention on the btree. However, on my test system which is an 80 core single socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the following results (with all debug options off): dbench 200 baseline Throughput 216.056 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=1471.197 ms dbench 200 with patch Throughput 737.188 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=714.346 ms Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough tasks to really stress the locking fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16 baseline Average Files/sec: 160166.7 p50 Files/sec: 165832 p90 Files/sec: 123886 p99 Files/sec: 123495 real 3m26.527s user 2m19.223s sys 48m21.856s patched Average Files/sec: 164135.7 p50 Files/sec: 171095 p90 Files/sec: 122889 p99 Files/sec: 113819 real 3m29.660s user 2m19.990s sys 44m12.259s Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-08-20 18:46:09 +03:00
* Returns with the eb->lock write locked.
Btrfs: Change btree locking to use explicit blocking points Most of the btrfs metadata operations can be protected by a spinlock, but some operations still need to schedule. So far, btrfs has been using a mutex along with a trylock loop, most of the time it is able to avoid going for the full mutex, so the trylock loop is a big performance gain. This commit is step one for getting rid of the blocking locks entirely. btrfs_tree_lock takes a spinlock, and the code explicitly switches to a blocking lock when it starts an operation that can schedule. We'll be able get rid of the blocking locks in smaller pieces over time. Tracing allows us to find the most common cause of blocking, so we can start with the hot spots first. The basic idea is: btrfs_tree_lock() returns with the spin lock held btrfs_set_lock_blocking() sets the EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING bit in the extent buffer flags, and then drops the spin lock. The buffer is still considered locked by all of the btrfs code. If btrfs_tree_lock gets the spinlock but finds the blocking bit set, it drops the spin lock and waits on a wait queue for the blocking bit to go away. Much of the code that needs to set the blocking bit finishes without actually blocking a good percentage of the time. So, an adaptive spin is still used against the blocking bit to avoid very high context switch rates. btrfs_clear_lock_blocking() clears the blocking bit and returns with the spinlock held again. btrfs_tree_unlock() can be called on either blocking or spinning locks, it does the right thing based on the blocking bit. ctree.c has a helper function to set/clear all the locked buffers in a path as blocking. Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
2009-02-04 17:25:08 +03:00
*/
void __btrfs_tree_lock(struct extent_buffer *eb, enum btrfs_lock_nesting nest)
__acquires(&eb->lock)
Btrfs: Change btree locking to use explicit blocking points Most of the btrfs metadata operations can be protected by a spinlock, but some operations still need to schedule. So far, btrfs has been using a mutex along with a trylock loop, most of the time it is able to avoid going for the full mutex, so the trylock loop is a big performance gain. This commit is step one for getting rid of the blocking locks entirely. btrfs_tree_lock takes a spinlock, and the code explicitly switches to a blocking lock when it starts an operation that can schedule. We'll be able get rid of the blocking locks in smaller pieces over time. Tracing allows us to find the most common cause of blocking, so we can start with the hot spots first. The basic idea is: btrfs_tree_lock() returns with the spin lock held btrfs_set_lock_blocking() sets the EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING bit in the extent buffer flags, and then drops the spin lock. The buffer is still considered locked by all of the btrfs code. If btrfs_tree_lock gets the spinlock but finds the blocking bit set, it drops the spin lock and waits on a wait queue for the blocking bit to go away. Much of the code that needs to set the blocking bit finishes without actually blocking a good percentage of the time. So, an adaptive spin is still used against the blocking bit to avoid very high context switch rates. btrfs_clear_lock_blocking() clears the blocking bit and returns with the spinlock held again. btrfs_tree_unlock() can be called on either blocking or spinning locks, it does the right thing based on the blocking bit. ctree.c has a helper function to set/clear all the locked buffers in a path as blocking. Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
2009-02-04 17:25:08 +03:00
{
u64 start_ns = 0;
if (trace_btrfs_tree_lock_enabled())
start_ns = ktime_get_ns();
btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the tree. For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll likely become available soon. At the time this code was written the rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of magnitude slower than our home grown locking. However now the opposite is the case. There are a few problems with how we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order. This leads to some suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly contended cases. The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also have adaptive spinning that works relatively well. The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep. So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and simply use a rw_semaphore for everything. This makes the locking much simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking transitions. The performance numbers vary depending on the workload, because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention on the btree. However, on my test system which is an 80 core single socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the following results (with all debug options off): dbench 200 baseline Throughput 216.056 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=1471.197 ms dbench 200 with patch Throughput 737.188 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=714.346 ms Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough tasks to really stress the locking fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16 baseline Average Files/sec: 160166.7 p50 Files/sec: 165832 p90 Files/sec: 123886 p99 Files/sec: 123495 real 3m26.527s user 2m19.223s sys 48m21.856s patched Average Files/sec: 164135.7 p50 Files/sec: 171095 p90 Files/sec: 122889 p99 Files/sec: 113819 real 3m29.660s user 2m19.990s sys 44m12.259s Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-08-20 18:46:09 +03:00
down_write_nested(&eb->lock, nest);
eb->lock_owner = current->pid;
trace_btrfs_tree_lock(eb, start_ns);
}
void btrfs_tree_lock(struct extent_buffer *eb)
{
__btrfs_tree_lock(eb, BTRFS_NESTING_NORMAL);
}
/*
btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the tree. For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll likely become available soon. At the time this code was written the rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of magnitude slower than our home grown locking. However now the opposite is the case. There are a few problems with how we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order. This leads to some suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly contended cases. The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also have adaptive spinning that works relatively well. The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep. So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and simply use a rw_semaphore for everything. This makes the locking much simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking transitions. The performance numbers vary depending on the workload, because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention on the btree. However, on my test system which is an 80 core single socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the following results (with all debug options off): dbench 200 baseline Throughput 216.056 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=1471.197 ms dbench 200 with patch Throughput 737.188 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=714.346 ms Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough tasks to really stress the locking fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16 baseline Average Files/sec: 160166.7 p50 Files/sec: 165832 p90 Files/sec: 123886 p99 Files/sec: 123495 real 3m26.527s user 2m19.223s sys 48m21.856s patched Average Files/sec: 164135.7 p50 Files/sec: 171095 p90 Files/sec: 122889 p99 Files/sec: 113819 real 3m29.660s user 2m19.990s sys 44m12.259s Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-08-20 18:46:09 +03:00
* Release the write lock.
*/
void btrfs_tree_unlock(struct extent_buffer *eb)
{
trace_btrfs_tree_unlock(eb);
eb->lock_owner = 0;
btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the tree. For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll likely become available soon. At the time this code was written the rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of magnitude slower than our home grown locking. However now the opposite is the case. There are a few problems with how we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order. This leads to some suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly contended cases. The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also have adaptive spinning that works relatively well. The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep. So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and simply use a rw_semaphore for everything. This makes the locking much simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking transitions. The performance numbers vary depending on the workload, because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention on the btree. However, on my test system which is an 80 core single socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the following results (with all debug options off): dbench 200 baseline Throughput 216.056 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=1471.197 ms dbench 200 with patch Throughput 737.188 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=714.346 ms Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough tasks to really stress the locking fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16 baseline Average Files/sec: 160166.7 p50 Files/sec: 165832 p90 Files/sec: 123886 p99 Files/sec: 123495 real 3m26.527s user 2m19.223s sys 48m21.856s patched Average Files/sec: 164135.7 p50 Files/sec: 171095 p90 Files/sec: 122889 p99 Files/sec: 113819 real 3m29.660s user 2m19.990s sys 44m12.259s Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-08-20 18:46:09 +03:00
up_write(&eb->lock);
}
/*
* This releases any locks held in the path starting at level and going all the
* way up to the root.
*
* btrfs_search_slot will keep the lock held on higher nodes in a few corner
* cases, such as COW of the block at slot zero in the node. This ignores
* those rules, and it should only be called when there are no more updates to
* be done higher up in the tree.
*/
void btrfs_unlock_up_safe(struct btrfs_path *path, int level)
{
int i;
if (path->keep_locks)
return;
for (i = level; i < BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL; i++) {
if (!path->nodes[i])
continue;
if (!path->locks[i])
continue;
btrfs_tree_unlock_rw(path->nodes[i], path->locks[i]);
path->locks[i] = 0;
}
}
/*
* Loop around taking references on and locking the root node of the tree until
* we end up with a lock on the root node.
*
* Return: root extent buffer with write lock held
*/
struct extent_buffer *btrfs_lock_root_node(struct btrfs_root *root)
{
struct extent_buffer *eb;
while (1) {
eb = btrfs_root_node(root);
btrfs_tree_lock(eb);
if (eb == root->node)
break;
btrfs_tree_unlock(eb);
free_extent_buffer(eb);
}
return eb;
}
/*
* Loop around taking references on and locking the root node of the tree until
* we end up with a lock on the root node.
*
* Return: root extent buffer with read lock held
*/
struct extent_buffer *btrfs_read_lock_root_node(struct btrfs_root *root)
{
struct extent_buffer *eb;
while (1) {
eb = btrfs_root_node(root);
btrfs_tree_read_lock(eb);
if (eb == root->node)
break;
btrfs_tree_read_unlock(eb);
free_extent_buffer(eb);
}
return eb;
}
/*
* DREW locks
* ==========
*
* DREW stands for double-reader-writer-exclusion lock. It's used in situation
* where you want to provide A-B exclusion but not AA or BB.
*
* Currently implementation gives more priority to reader. If a reader and a
* writer both race to acquire their respective sides of the lock the writer
* would yield its lock as soon as it detects a concurrent reader. Additionally
* if there are pending readers no new writers would be allowed to come in and
* acquire the lock.
*/
int btrfs_drew_lock_init(struct btrfs_drew_lock *lock)
{
int ret;
ret = percpu_counter_init(&lock->writers, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
if (ret)
return ret;
atomic_set(&lock->readers, 0);
init_waitqueue_head(&lock->pending_readers);
init_waitqueue_head(&lock->pending_writers);
return 0;
}
void btrfs_drew_lock_destroy(struct btrfs_drew_lock *lock)
{
percpu_counter_destroy(&lock->writers);
}
/* Return true if acquisition is successful, false otherwise */
bool btrfs_drew_try_write_lock(struct btrfs_drew_lock *lock)
{
if (atomic_read(&lock->readers))
return false;
percpu_counter_inc(&lock->writers);
/* Ensure writers count is updated before we check for pending readers */
smp_mb();
if (atomic_read(&lock->readers)) {
btrfs_drew_write_unlock(lock);
return false;
}
return true;
}
void btrfs_drew_write_lock(struct btrfs_drew_lock *lock)
{
while (true) {
if (btrfs_drew_try_write_lock(lock))
return;
wait_event(lock->pending_writers, !atomic_read(&lock->readers));
}
}
void btrfs_drew_write_unlock(struct btrfs_drew_lock *lock)
{
percpu_counter_dec(&lock->writers);
cond_wake_up(&lock->pending_readers);
}
void btrfs_drew_read_lock(struct btrfs_drew_lock *lock)
{
atomic_inc(&lock->readers);
/*
* Ensure the pending reader count is perceieved BEFORE this reader
* goes to sleep in case of active writers. This guarantees new writers
* won't be allowed and that the current reader will be woken up when
* the last active writer finishes its jobs.
*/
smp_mb__after_atomic();
wait_event(lock->pending_readers,
percpu_counter_sum(&lock->writers) == 0);
}
void btrfs_drew_read_unlock(struct btrfs_drew_lock *lock)
{
/*
* atomic_dec_and_test implies a full barrier, so woken up writers
* are guaranteed to see the decrement
*/
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&lock->readers))
wake_up(&lock->pending_writers);
}