On 06/20/2015 01:21 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 07:28:11PM +0200, Beata Michalska wrote:

quoted

On 06/19/2015 02:03 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:25:08AM +0200, Beata Michalska wrote:

quoted

On 06/18/2015 01:06 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 03:09:30PM +0200, Beata Michalska wrote:

quoted

Introduce configurable generic interface for file
system-wide event notifications, to provide file
systems with a common way of reporting any potential
issues as they emerge.

The notifications are to be issued through generic
netlink interface by newly introduced multicast group.

Threshold notifications have been included, allowing
triggering an event whenever the amount of free space drops
below a certain level - or levels to be more precise as two
of them are being supported: the lower and the upper range.
The notifications work both ways: once the threshold level
has been reached, an event shall be generated whenever
the number of available blocks goes up again re-activating
the threshold.

The interface has been exposed through a vfs. Once mounted,
it serves as an entry point for the set-up where one can
register for particular file system events.

Signed-off-by: Beata Michalska <redacted>

This has massive scalability problems:

....

quoted

quoted

Have you noticed that the filesystems have percpu counters for
tracking global space usage? There's good reason for that - taking a
spinlock in such a hot accounting path causes severe contention.

....

quoted

quoted

Then puts the entire netlink send path inside this spinlock, which
includes memory allocation and all sorts of non-filesystem code
paths. And it may be inside critical filesystem locks as well....

Apart from the serialisation problem of the locking, adding
memory allocation and the network send path to filesystem code
that is effectively considered "innermost" filesystem code is going
to have all sorts of problems for various filesystems. In the XFS
case, we simply cannot execute this sort of function in the places
where we update global space accounting.

As it is, I think the basic concept of separate tracking of free
space if fundamentally flawed. What I think needs to be done is that
filesystems need access to the thresholds for events, and then the
filesystems call fs_event_send_thresh() themselves from appropriate
contexts (ie. without compromising locking, scalability, memory
allocation recursion constraints, etc).

e.g. instead of tracking every change in free space, a filesystem
might execute this once every few seconds from a workqueue:

	event = fs_event_need_space_warning(sb, <fs_free_space>)
	if (event)
		fs_event_send_thresh(sb, event);

User still gets warnings about space usage, but there's no runtime
overhead or problems with lock/memory allocation contexts, etc.

Having fs to keep a firm hand on thresholds limits would indeed be
far more sane approach though that would require each fs to
add support for that and handle most of it on their own. Avoiding

quoted

this was the main rationale behind this rfc.

If fs people agree to that, I'll be more than willing to drop this
in favour of the per-fs tracking solution. 
Personally, I hope they will.

I was hoping that you'd think a little more about my suggestion and
work out how to do background threshold event detection generically.
I kind of left it as "an exercise for the reader" because it seems
obvious to me.

Hint: ->statfs allows you to get the total, free and used space
from filesystems in a generic manner.

Cheers,

Dave.

I haven't given up on that, so yes, I'm still working on a more suitable
generic solution.
Background detection is one of the options, though it needs some more thoughts.
Giving up the sync approach means less accuracy for the threshold notifications,
but I guess this could be fine-tuned to get an acceptable level.

Accuracy really doesn't matter for threshold notifications - by the
time the event is delivered to userspace it can already be wrong.

quoted

Another bump:
how this tuning is supposed to be done (additional config option maybe)? 

Why would you need to tune it at all? You can't *stop* the operation
that is triggering the threshold, so a few seconds delay on delivery
isn't going to make any difference to anyone....

You're overthinking this massively. All this needs is a work item
per superblock, and when the thresholds are turned on it queues a
self-repeating delayed work that calls ->statfs, checks against the
configured threshold, issues an event if necessary, and then queues
itself again to run next period. When the threshold is turned off,
the work is cancelled.

Another option: a kernel thread that runs periodically and just
calls iterate_supers() with a function that checks the sb for
threshold events, and if configured runs ->statfs and does the work,
otherwise skips the sb. That avoids all the lifetime issues with
using workqueues, you don't need a struct work, etc.

quoted

There is also an idea of using an interface resembling the stackable fs:

No. Just .... No.

Cheers,

Dave.

Alright, I'll make appropriate changes to move the threshold
verification into the background and see how it works.


Thanks,

Best Regards
Beata 





--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>