Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2023 08:19:47 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Speed improvements in ZFS Message-ID: <1d0d37f27e4898f1604c6ddc6ad3e831@Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <076f09cc0b99643072d8b80a6ec5b03b@Leidinger.net> References: <CAGudoHEP8TrSzz0TL-PsOx0WNc7z3042wJk-jhhVwhTyJ0VEQQ@mail.gmail.com> <88e837aeb5a65c1f001de2077fb7bcbd@Leidinger.net> <4d60bd12b482e020fd4b186a9ec1a250@Leidinger.net> <CAGudoHE7RPcHpQEqKbzRM8cJcYKue17=iPVv8iOfZq03h22tTA@mail.gmail.com> <73f7c9d3db8f117deb077fb17b1e352a@Leidinger.net> <CAGudoHGPw0Dmnv6ont8JGyLsT7qv%2BQqAFZO3tKOpNo3eN%2BJgLQ@mail.gmail.com> <58493b568dbe9fb52cc55de86e01f5e2@Leidinger.net> <CAGudoHEyZh1DU=j_6mOfB3tSKhC-pNokPgONDbf4oF3D3A5=jg@mail.gmail.com> <ZOKC3-6uyPUO8qNY@kib.kiev.ua> <58ac6211235c52d744666e8ae2ec7568@Leidinger.net> <ZOMmHF0RiVyroUk8@kib.kiev.ua> <444770b977b02b98985928bea450e4ce@Leidinger.net> <CAGudoHF20EVPcrdRixfhktp-==8=CuYLY6wpPkXLRRizQLCsKA@mail.gmail.com> <076f09cc0b99643072d8b80a6ec5b03b@Leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 2023-08-28 22:33, schrieb Alexander Leidinger: > Am 2023-08-22 18:59, schrieb Mateusz Guzik: >> On 8/22/23, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> wrote: >>> Am 2023-08-21 10:53, schrieb Konstantin Belousov: >>>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 08:19:28AM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >>>>> Am 2023-08-20 23:17, schrieb Konstantin Belousov: >>>>> > On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 11:07:08PM +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote: >>>>> > > On 8/20/23, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> wrote: >>>>> > > > Am 2023-08-20 22:02, schrieb Mateusz Guzik: >>>>> > > >> On 8/20/23, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> wrote: >>>>> > > >>> Am 2023-08-20 19:10, schrieb Mateusz Guzik: >>>>> > > >>>> On 8/18/23, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> >>>>> > > >>>> wrote: >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >>>>> I have a 51MB text file, compressed to about 1MB. Are you >>>>> > > >>>>> interested >>>>> > > >>>>> to >>>>> > > >>>>> get it? >>>>> > > >>>>> >>>>> > > >>>> >>>>> > > >>>> Your problem is not the vnode limit, but nullfs. >>>>> > > >>>> >>>>> > > >>>> https://people.freebsd.org/~mjg/netchild-periodic-find.svg >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> 122 nullfs mounts on this system. And every jail I setup has >>>>> > > >>> several >>>>> > > >>> null mounts. One basesystem mounted into every jail, and then >>>>> > > >>> shared >>>>> > > >>> ports (packages/distfiles/ccache) across all of them. >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >>>> First, some of the contention is notorious VI_LOCK in order to >>>>> > > >>>> do >>>>> > > >>>> anything. >>>>> > > >>>> >>>>> > > >>>> But more importantly the mind-boggling off-cpu time comes from >>>>> > > >>>> exclusive locking which should not be there to begin with -- as >>>>> > > >>>> in >>>>> > > >>>> that xlock in stat should be a slock. >>>>> > > >>>> >>>>> > > >>>> Maybe I'm going to look into it later. >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> That would be fantastic. >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > > >> I did a quick test, things are shared locked as expected. >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > > >> However, I found the following: >>>>> > > >> if ((xmp->nullm_flags & NULLM_CACHE) != 0) { >>>>> > > >> mp->mnt_kern_flag |= >>>>> > > >> lowerrootvp->v_mount->mnt_kern_flag & >>>>> > > >> (MNTK_SHARED_WRITES | MNTK_LOOKUP_SHARED | >>>>> > > >> MNTK_EXTENDED_SHARED); >>>>> > > >> } >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > > >> are you using the "nocache" option? it has a side effect of >>>>> > > >> xlocking >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > I use noatime, noexec, nosuid, nfsv4acls. I do NOT use nocache. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > If you don't have "nocache" on null mounts, then I don't see how >>>>> > > this >>>>> > > could happen. >>>>> > >>>>> > There is also MNTK_NULL_NOCACHE on lower fs, which is currently set >>>>> > for >>>>> > fuse and nfs at least. >>>>> >>>>> 11 of those 122 nullfs mounts are ZFS datasets which are also NFS >>>>> exported. >>>>> 6 of those nullfs mounts are also exported via Samba. The NFS >>>>> exports >>>>> shouldn't be needed anymore, I will remove them. >>>> By nfs I meant nfs client, not nfs exports. >>> >>> No NFS client mounts anywhere on this system. So where is this >>> exclusive >>> lock coming from then... >>> This is a ZFS system. 2 pools: one for the root, one for anything I >>> need >>> space for. Both pools reside on the same disks. The root pool is a >>> 3-way >>> mirror, the "space-pool" is a 5-disk raidz2. All jails are on the >>> space-pool. The jails are all basejail-style jails. >>> >> >> While I don't see why xlocking happens, you should be able to dtrace >> or printf your way into finding out. > > dtrace looks to me like a faster approach to get to the root than > printf... my first naive try is to detect exclusive locks. I'm not 100% > sure I got it right, but at least dtrace doesn't complain about it: > ---snip--- > #pragma D option dynvarsize=32m > > fbt:nullfs:null_lock:entry > /args[0]->a_flags & 0x080000 != 0/ > { > stack(); > } > ---snip--- > > In which direction should I look with dtrace if this works in tonights > run of periodic? I don't have enough knowledge about VFS to come up > with some immediate ideas. After your sysctl fix for maxvnodes I increased the amount of vnodes 10 times compared to the initial report. This has increased the speed of the operation, the find runs in all those jails finished today after ~5h (@~8am) instead of in the afternoon as before. Could this suggest that in parallel some null_reclaim() is running which does the exclusive locks and slows down the entire operation? Bye, Alexander. -- http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander@Leidinger.net: PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild@FreeBSD.org : PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1d0d37f27e4898f1604c6ddc6ad3e831>