writeback: split inode_wb_list_lock into bdi_writeback.list_lock
Split the global inode_wb_list_lock into a per-bdi_writeback list_lock,
as it's currently the most contended lock in the system for metadata
heavy workloads. It won't help for single-filesystem workloads for
which we'll need the I/O-less balance_dirty_pages, but at least we
can dedicate a cpu to spinning on each bdi now for larger systems.
Based on earlier patches from Nick Piggin and Dave Chinner.
It reduces lock contentions to 1/4 in this test case:
10 HDD JBOD, 100 dd on each disk, XFS, 6GB ram
lock_stat version 0.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
class name con-bounces contentions waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total acq-bounces acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vanilla 2.6.39-rc3:
inode_wb_list_lock: 42590 44433 0.12 147.74 144127.35 252274 886792 0.08 121.34 917211.23
------------------
inode_wb_list_lock 2 [<ffffffff81165da5>] bdev_inode_switch_bdi+0x29/0x85
inode_wb_list_lock 34 [<ffffffff8115bd0b>] inode_wb_list_del+0x22/0x49
inode_wb_list_lock 12893 [<ffffffff8115bb53>] __mark_inode_dirty+0x170/0x1d0
inode_wb_list_lock 10702 [<ffffffff8115afef>] writeback_single_inode+0x16d/0x20a
------------------
inode_wb_list_lock 2 [<ffffffff81165da5>] bdev_inode_switch_bdi+0x29/0x85
inode_wb_list_lock 19 [<ffffffff8115bd0b>] inode_wb_list_del+0x22/0x49
inode_wb_list_lock 5550 [<ffffffff8115bb53>] __mark_inode_dirty+0x170/0x1d0
inode_wb_list_lock 8511 [<ffffffff8115b4ad>] writeback_sb_inodes+0x10f/0x157
2.6.39-rc3 + patch:
&(&wb->list_lock)->rlock: 11383 11657 0.14 151.69 40429.51 90825 527918 0.11 145.90 556843.37
------------------------
&(&wb->list_lock)->rlock 10 [<ffffffff8115b189>] inode_wb_list_del+0x5f/0x86
&(&wb->list_lock)->rlock 1493 [<ffffffff8115b1ed>] writeback_inodes_wb+0x3d/0x150
&(&wb->list_lock)->rlock 3652 [<ffffffff8115a8e9>] writeback_sb_inodes+0x123/0x16f
&(&wb->list_lock)->rlock 1412 [<ffffffff8115a38e>] writeback_single_inode+0x17f/0x223
------------------------
&(&wb->list_lock)->rlock 3 [<ffffffff8110b5af>] bdi_lock_two+0x46/0x4b
&(&wb->list_lock)->rlock 6 [<ffffffff8115b189>] inode_wb_list_del+0x5f/0x86
&(&wb->list_lock)->rlock 2061 [<ffffffff8115af97>] __mark_inode_dirty+0x173/0x1cf
&(&wb->list_lock)->rlock 2629 [<ffffffff8115a8e9>] writeback_sb_inodes+0x123/0x16f
hughd@google.com: fix recursive lock when bdi_lock_two() is called with new the same as old
akpm@linux-foundation.org: cleanup bdev_inode_switch_bdi() comment
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
index 0f7e88a..4be128c 100644
--- a/fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/inode.c
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
* inode_lru, inode->i_lru
* inode_sb_list_lock protects:
* sb->s_inodes, inode->i_sb_list
- * inode_wb_list_lock protects:
+ * bdi->wb.list_lock protects:
* bdi->wb.b_{dirty,io,more_io}, inode->i_wb_list
* inode_hash_lock protects:
* inode_hashtable, inode->i_hash
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
* inode->i_lock
* inode_lru_lock
*
- * inode_wb_list_lock
+ * bdi->wb.list_lock
* inode->i_lock
*
* inode_hash_lock
@@ -68,7 +68,6 @@
static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(inode_lru_lock);
__cacheline_aligned_in_smp DEFINE_SPINLOCK(inode_sb_list_lock);
-__cacheline_aligned_in_smp DEFINE_SPINLOCK(inode_wb_list_lock);
/*
* iprune_sem provides exclusion between the icache shrinking and the
