|
@@ -0,0 +1,816 @@
|
|
|
+XFS Delayed Logging Design
|
|
|
+--------------------------
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Introduction to Re-logging in XFS
|
|
|
+---------------------------------
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+XFS logging is a combination of logical and physical logging. Some objects,
|
|
|
+such as inodes and dquots, are logged in logical format where the details
|
|
|
+logged are made up of the changes to in-core structures rather than on-disk
|
|
|
+structures. Other objects - typically buffers - have their physical changes
|
|
|
+logged. The reason for these differences is to reduce the amount of log space
|
|
|
+required for objects that are frequently logged. Some parts of inodes are more
|
|
|
+frequently logged than others, and inodes are typically more frequently logged
|
|
|
+than any other object (except maybe the superblock buffer) so keeping the
|
|
|
+amount of metadata logged low is of prime importance.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The reason that this is such a concern is that XFS allows multiple separate
|
|
|
+modifications to a single object to be carried in the log at any given time.
|
|
|
+This allows the log to avoid needing to flush each change to disk before
|
|
|
+recording a new change to the object. XFS does this via a method called
|
|
|
+"re-logging". Conceptually, this is quite simple - all it requires is that any
|
|
|
+new change to the object is recorded with a *new copy* of all the existing
|
|
|
+changes in the new transaction that is written to the log.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+That is, if we have a sequence of changes A through to F, and the object was
|
|
|
+written to disk after change D, we would see in the log the following series
|
|
|
+of transactions, their contents and the log sequence number (LSN) of the
|
|
|
+transaction:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ Transaction Contents LSN
|
|
|
+ A A X
|
|
|
+ B A+B X+n
|
|
|
+ C A+B+C X+n+m
|
|
|
+ D A+B+C+D X+n+m+o
|
|
|
+ <object written to disk>
|
|
|
+ E E Y (> X+n+m+o)
|
|
|
+ F E+F Yٍ+p
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+In other words, each time an object is relogged, the new transaction contains
|
|
|
+the aggregation of all the previous changes currently held only in the log.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+This relogging technique also allows objects to be moved forward in the log so
|
|
|
+that an object being relogged does not prevent the tail of the log from ever
|
|
|
+moving forward. This can be seen in the table above by the changing
|
|
|
+(increasing) LSN of each subsquent transaction - the LSN is effectively a
|
|
|
+direct encoding of the location in the log of the transaction.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+This relogging is also used to implement long-running, multiple-commit
|
|
|
+transactions. These transaction are known as rolling transactions, and require
|
|
|
+a special log reservation known as a permanent transaction reservation. A
|
|
|
+typical example of a rolling transaction is the removal of extents from an
|
|
|
+inode which can only be done at a rate of two extents per transaction because
|
|
|
+of reservation size limitations. Hence a rolling extent removal transaction
|
|
|
+keeps relogging the inode and btree buffers as they get modified in each
|
|
|
+removal operation. This keeps them moving forward in the log as the operation
|
|
|
+progresses, ensuring that current operation never gets blocked by itself if the
|
|
|
+log wraps around.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Hence it can be seen that the relogging operation is fundamental to the correct
|
|
|
+working of the XFS journalling subsystem. From the above description, most
|
|
|
+people should be able to see why the XFS metadata operations writes so much to
|
|
|
+the log - repeated operations to the same objects write the same changes to
|
|
|
+the log over and over again. Worse is the fact that objects tend to get
|
|
|
+dirtier as they get relogged, so each subsequent transaction is writing more
|
|
|
+metadata into the log.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Another feature of the XFS transaction subsystem is that most transactions are
|
|
|
+asynchronous. That is, they don't commit to disk until either a log buffer is
|
|
|
+filled (a log buffer can hold multiple transactions) or a synchronous operation
|
|
|
+forces the log buffers holding the transactions to disk. This means that XFS is
|
|
|
+doing aggregation of transactions in memory - batching them, if you like - to
|
|
|
+minimise the impact of the log IO on transaction throughput.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The limitation on asynchronous transaction throughput is the number and size of
|
|
|
+log buffers made available by the log manager. By default there are 8 log
|
|
|
+buffers available and the size of each is 32kB - the size can be increased up
|
|
|
+to 256kB by use of a mount option.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Effectively, this gives us the maximum bound of outstanding metadata changes
|
|
|
+that can be made to the filesystem at any point in time - if all the log
|
|
|
+buffers are full and under IO, then no more transactions can be committed until
|
|
|
+the current batch completes. It is now common for a single current CPU core to
|
|
|
+be to able to issue enough transactions to keep the log buffers full and under
|
|
|
+IO permanently. Hence the XFS journalling subsystem can be considered to be IO
|
|
|
+bound.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Delayed Logging: Concepts
|
|
|
+-------------------------
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The key thing to note about the asynchronous logging combined with the
|
|
|
+relogging technique XFS uses is that we can be relogging changed objects
|
|
|
+multiple times before they are committed to disk in the log buffers. If we
|
|
|
+return to the previous relogging example, it is entirely possible that
|
|
|
+transactions A through D are committed to disk in the same log buffer.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+That is, a single log buffer may contain multiple copies of the same object,
|
|
|
+but only one of those copies needs to be there - the last one "D", as it
|
|
|
+contains all the changes from the previous changes. In other words, we have one
|
|
|
+necessary copy in the log buffer, and three stale copies that are simply
|
|
|
+wasting space. When we are doing repeated operations on the same set of
|
|
|
+objects, these "stale objects" can be over 90% of the space used in the log
|
|
|
+buffers. It is clear that reducing the number of stale objects written to the
|
|
|
+log would greatly reduce the amount of metadata we write to the log, and this
|
|
|
+is the fundamental goal of delayed logging.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+From a conceptual point of view, XFS is already doing relogging in memory (where
|
|
|
+memory == log buffer), only it is doing it extremely inefficiently. It is using
|
|
|
+logical to physical formatting to do the relogging because there is no
|
|
|
+infrastructure to keep track of logical changes in memory prior to physically
|
|
|
+formatting the changes in a transaction to the log buffer. Hence we cannot avoid
|
|
|
+accumulating stale objects in the log buffers.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Delayed logging is the name we've given to keeping and tracking transactional
|
|
|
+changes to objects in memory outside the log buffer infrastructure. Because of
|
|
|
+the relogging concept fundamental to the XFS journalling subsystem, this is
|
|
|
+actually relatively easy to do - all the changes to logged items are already
|
|
|
+tracked in the current infrastructure. The big problem is how to accumulate
|
|
|
+them and get them to the log in a consistent, recoverable manner.
|
|
|
+Describing the problems and how they have been solved is the focus of this
|
|
|
+document.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+One of the key changes that delayed logging makes to the operation of the
|
|
|
+journalling subsystem is that it disassociates the amount of outstanding
|
|
|
+metadata changes from the size and number of log buffers available. In other
|
|
|
+words, instead of there only being a maximum of 2MB of transaction changes not
|
|
|
+written to the log at any point in time, there may be a much greater amount
|
|
|
+being accumulated in memory. Hence the potential for loss of metadata on a
|
|
|
+crash is much greater than for the existing logging mechanism.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+It should be noted that this does not change the guarantee that log recovery
|
|
|
+will result in a consistent filesystem. What it does mean is that as far as the
|
|
|
+recovered filesystem is concerned, there may be many thousands of transactions
|
|
|
+that simply did not occur as a result of the crash. This makes it even more
|
|
|
+important that applications that care about their data use fsync() where they
|
|
|
+need to ensure application level data integrity is maintained.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+It should be noted that delayed logging is not an innovative new concept that
|
|
|
+warrants rigorous proofs to determine whether it is correct or not. The method
|
|
|
+of accumulating changes in memory for some period before writing them to the
|
|
|
+log is used effectively in many filesystems including ext3 and ext4. Hence
|
|
|
+no time is spent in this document trying to convince the reader that the
|
|
|
+concept is sound. Instead it is simply considered a "solved problem" and as
|
|
|
+such implementing it in XFS is purely an exercise in software engineering.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The fundamental requirements for delayed logging in XFS are simple:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ 1. Reduce the amount of metadata written to the log by at least
|
|
|
+ an order of magnitude.
|
|
|
+ 2. Supply sufficient statistics to validate Requirement #1.
|
|
|
+ 3. Supply sufficient new tracing infrastructure to be able to debug
|
|
|
+ problems with the new code.
|
|
|
+ 4. No on-disk format change (metadata or log format).
|
|
|
+ 5. Enable and disable with a mount option.
|
|
|
+ 6. No performance regressions for synchronous transaction workloads.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Delayed Logging: Design
|
|
|
+-----------------------
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Storing Changes
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The problem with accumulating changes at a logical level (i.e. just using the
|
|
|
+existing log item dirty region tracking) is that when it comes to writing the
|
|
|
+changes to the log buffers, we need to ensure that the object we are formatting
|
|
|
+is not changing while we do this. This requires locking the object to prevent
|
|
|
+concurrent modification. Hence flushing the logical changes to the log would
|
|
|
+require us to lock every object, format them, and then unlock them again.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+This introduces lots of scope for deadlocks with transactions that are already
|
|
|
+running. For example, a transaction has object A locked and modified, but needs
|
|
|
+the delayed logging tracking lock to commit the transaction. However, the
|
|
|
+flushing thread has the delayed logging tracking lock already held, and is
|
|
|
+trying to get the lock on object A to flush it to the log buffer. This appears
|
|
|
+to be an unsolvable deadlock condition, and it was solving this problem that
|
|
|
+was the barrier to implementing delayed logging for so long.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The solution is relatively simple - it just took a long time to recognise it.
|
|
|
+Put simply, the current logging code formats the changes to each item into an
|
|
|
+vector array that points to the changed regions in the item. The log write code
|
|
|
+simply copies the memory these vectors point to into the log buffer during
|
|
|
+transaction commit while the item is locked in the transaction. Instead of
|
|
|
+using the log buffer as the destination of the formatting code, we can use an
|
|
|
+allocated memory buffer big enough to fit the formatted vector.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+If we then copy the vector into the memory buffer and rewrite the vector to
|
|
|
+point to the memory buffer rather than the object itself, we now have a copy of
|
|
|
+the changes in a format that is compatible with the log buffer writing code.
|
|
|
+that does not require us to lock the item to access. This formatting and
|
|
|
+rewriting can all be done while the object is locked during transaction commit,
|
|
|
+resulting in a vector that is transactionally consistent and can be accessed
|
|
|
+without needing to lock the owning item.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Hence we avoid the need to lock items when we need to flush outstanding
|
|
|
+asynchronous transactions to the log. The differences between the existing
|
|
|
+formatting method and the delayed logging formatting can be seen in the
|
|
|
+diagram below.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Current format log vector:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Object +---------------------------------------------+
|
|
|
+Vector 1 +----+
|
|
|
+Vector 2 +----+
|
|
|
+Vector 3 +----------+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+After formatting:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Log Buffer +-V1-+-V2-+----V3----+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Delayed logging vector:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Object +---------------------------------------------+
|
|
|
+Vector 1 +----+
|
|
|
+Vector 2 +----+
|
|
|
+Vector 3 +----------+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+After formatting:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Memory Buffer +-V1-+-V2-+----V3----+
|
|
|
+Vector 1 +----+
|
|
|
+Vector 2 +----+
|
|
|
+Vector 3 +----------+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The memory buffer and associated vector need to be passed as a single object,
|
|
|
+but still need to be associated with the parent object so if the object is
|
|
|
+relogged we can replace the current memory buffer with a new memory buffer that
|
|
|
+contains the latest changes.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The reason for keeping the vector around after we've formatted the memory
|
|
|
+buffer is to support splitting vectors across log buffer boundaries correctly.
|
|
|
+If we don't keep the vector around, we do not know where the region boundaries
|
|
|
+are in the item, so we'd need a new encapsulation method for regions in the log
|
|
|
+buffer writing (i.e. double encapsulation). This would be an on-disk format
|
|
|
+change and as such is not desirable. It also means we'd have to write the log
|
|
|
+region headers in the formatting stage, which is problematic as there is per
|
|
|
+region state that needs to be placed into the headers during the log write.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Hence we need to keep the vector, but by attaching the memory buffer to it and
|
|
|
+rewriting the vector addresses to point at the memory buffer we end up with a
|
|
|
+self-describing object that can be passed to the log buffer write code to be
|
|
|
+handled in exactly the same manner as the existing log vectors are handled.
|
|
|
+Hence we avoid needing a new on-disk format to handle items that have been
|
|
|
+relogged in memory.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Tracking Changes
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Now that we can record transactional changes in memory in a form that allows
|
|
|
+them to be used without limitations, we need to be able to track and accumulate
|
|
|
+them so that they can be written to the log at some later point in time. The
|
|
|
+log item is the natural place to store this vector and buffer, and also makes sense
|
|
|
+to be the object that is used to track committed objects as it will always
|
|
|
+exist once the object has been included in a transaction.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The log item is already used to track the log items that have been written to
|
|
|
+the log but not yet written to disk. Such log items are considered "active"
|
|
|
+and as such are stored in the Active Item List (AIL) which is a LSN-ordered
|
|
|
+double linked list. Items are inserted into this list during log buffer IO
|
|
|
+completion, after which they are unpinned and can be written to disk. An object
|
|
|
+that is in the AIL can be relogged, which causes the object to be pinned again
|
|
|
+and then moved forward in the AIL when the log buffer IO completes for that
|
|
|
+transaction.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Essentially, this shows that an item that is in the AIL can still be modified
|
|
|
+and relogged, so any tracking must be separate to the AIL infrastructure. As
|
|
|
+such, we cannot reuse the AIL list pointers for tracking committed items, nor
|
|
|
+can we store state in any field that is protected by the AIL lock. Hence the
|
|
|
+committed item tracking needs it's own locks, lists and state fields in the log
|
|
|
+item.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Similar to the AIL, tracking of committed items is done through a new list
|
|
|
+called the Committed Item List (CIL). The list tracks log items that have been
|
|
|
+committed and have formatted memory buffers attached to them. It tracks objects
|
|
|
+in transaction commit order, so when an object is relogged it is removed from
|
|
|
+it's place in the list and re-inserted at the tail. This is entirely arbitrary
|
|
|
+and done to make it easy for debugging - the last items in the list are the
|
|
|
+ones that are most recently modified. Ordering of the CIL is not necessary for
|
|
|
+transactional integrity (as discussed in the next section) so the ordering is
|
|
|
+done for convenience/sanity of the developers.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Delayed Logging: Checkpoints
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+When we have a log synchronisation event, commonly known as a "log force",
|
|
|
+all the items in the CIL must be written into the log via the log buffers.
|
|
|
+We need to write these items in the order that they exist in the CIL, and they
|
|
|
+need to be written as an atomic transaction. The need for all the objects to be
|
|
|
+written as an atomic transaction comes from the requirements of relogging and
|
|
|
+log replay - all the changes in all the objects in a given transaction must
|
|
|
+either be completely replayed during log recovery, or not replayed at all. If
|
|
|
+a transaction is not replayed because it is not complete in the log, then
|
|
|
+no later transactions should be replayed, either.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+To fulfill this requirement, we need to write the entire CIL in a single log
|
|
|
+transaction. Fortunately, the XFS log code has no fixed limit on the size of a
|
|
|
+transaction, nor does the log replay code. The only fundamental limit is that
|
|
|
+the transaction cannot be larger than just under half the size of the log. The
|
|
|
+reason for this limit is that to find the head and tail of the log, there must
|
|
|
+be at least one complete transaction in the log at any given time. If a
|
|
|
+transaction is larger than half the log, then there is the possibility that a
|
|
|
+crash during the write of a such a transaction could partially overwrite the
|
|
|
+only complete previous transaction in the log. This will result in a recovery
|
|
|
+failure and an inconsistent filesystem and hence we must enforce the maximum
|
|
|
+size of a checkpoint to be slightly less than a half the log.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Apart from this size requirement, a checkpoint transaction looks no different
|
|
|
+to any other transaction - it contains a transaction header, a series of
|
|
|
+formatted log items and a commit record at the tail. From a recovery
|
|
|
+perspective, the checkpoint transaction is also no different - just a lot
|
|
|
+bigger with a lot more items in it. The worst case effect of this is that we
|
|
|
+might need to tune the recovery transaction object hash size.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Because the checkpoint is just another transaction and all the changes to log
|
|
|
+items are stored as log vectors, we can use the existing log buffer writing
|
|
|
+code to write the changes into the log. To do this efficiently, we need to
|
|
|
+minimise the time we hold the CIL locked while writing the checkpoint
|
|
|
+transaction. The current log write code enables us to do this easily with the
|
|
|
+way it separates the writing of the transaction contents (the log vectors) from
|
|
|
+the transaction commit record, but tracking this requires us to have a
|
|
|
+per-checkpoint context that travels through the log write process through to
|
|
|
+checkpoint completion.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Hence a checkpoint has a context that tracks the state of the current
|
|
|
+checkpoint from initiation to checkpoint completion. A new context is initiated
|
|
|
+at the same time a checkpoint transaction is started. That is, when we remove
|
|
|
+all the current items from the CIL during a checkpoint operation, we move all
|
|
|
+those changes into the current checkpoint context. We then initialise a new
|
|
|
+context and attach that to the CIL for aggregation of new transactions.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+This allows us to unlock the CIL immediately after transfer of all the
|
|
|
+committed items and effectively allow new transactions to be issued while we
|
|
|
+are formatting the checkpoint into the log. It also allows concurrent
|
|
|
+checkpoints to be written into the log buffers in the case of log force heavy
|
|
|
+workloads, just like the existing transaction commit code does. This, however,
|
|
|
+requires that we strictly order the commit records in the log so that
|
|
|
+checkpoint sequence order is maintained during log replay.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+To ensure that we can be writing an item into a checkpoint transaction at
|
|
|
+the same time another transaction modifies the item and inserts the log item
|
|
|
+into the new CIL, then checkpoint transaction commit code cannot use log items
|
|
|
+to store the list of log vectors that need to be written into the transaction.
|
|
|
+Hence log vectors need to be able to be chained together to allow them to be
|
|
|
+detatched from the log items. That is, when the CIL is flushed the memory
|
|
|
+buffer and log vector attached to each log item needs to be attached to the
|
|
|
+checkpoint context so that the log item can be released. In diagrammatic form,
|
|
|
+the CIL would look like this before the flush:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ CIL Head
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
+ V
|
|
|
+ Log Item <-> log vector 1 -> memory buffer
|
|
|
+ | -> vector array
|
|
|
+ V
|
|
|
+ Log Item <-> log vector 2 -> memory buffer
|
|
|
+ | -> vector array
|
|
|
+ V
|
|
|
+ ......
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
+ V
|
|
|
+ Log Item <-> log vector N-1 -> memory buffer
|
|
|
+ | -> vector array
|
|
|
+ V
|
|
|
+ Log Item <-> log vector N -> memory buffer
|
|
|
+ -> vector array
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+And after the flush the CIL head is empty, and the checkpoint context log
|
|
|
+vector list would look like:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ Checkpoint Context
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
+ V
|
|
|
+ log vector 1 -> memory buffer
|
|
|
+ | -> vector array
|
|
|
+ | -> Log Item
|
|
|
+ V
|
|
|
+ log vector 2 -> memory buffer
|
|
|
+ | -> vector array
|
|
|
+ | -> Log Item
|
|
|
+ V
|
|
|
+ ......
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
+ V
|
|
|
+ log vector N-1 -> memory buffer
|
|
|
+ | -> vector array
|
|
|
+ | -> Log Item
|
|
|
+ V
|
|
|
+ log vector N -> memory buffer
|
|
|
+ -> vector array
|
|
|
+ -> Log Item
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Once this transfer is done, the CIL can be unlocked and new transactions can
|
|
|
+start, while the checkpoint flush code works over the log vector chain to
|
|
|
+commit the checkpoint.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Once the checkpoint is written into the log buffers, the checkpoint context is
|
|
|
+attached to the log buffer that the commit record was written to along with a
|
|
|
+completion callback. Log IO completion will call that callback, which can then
|
|
|
+run transaction committed processing for the log items (i.e. insert into AIL
|
|
|
+and unpin) in the log vector chain and then free the log vector chain and
|
|
|
+checkpoint context.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Discussion Point: I am uncertain as to whether the log item is the most
|
|
|
+efficient way to track vectors, even though it seems like the natural way to do
|
|
|
+it. The fact that we walk the log items (in the CIL) just to chain the log
|
|
|
+vectors and break the link between the log item and the log vector means that
|
|
|
+we take a cache line hit for the log item list modification, then another for
|
|
|
+the log vector chaining. If we track by the log vectors, then we only need to
|
|
|
+break the link between the log item and the log vector, which means we should
|
|
|
+dirty only the log item cachelines. Normally I wouldn't be concerned about one
|
|
|
+vs two dirty cachelines except for the fact I've seen upwards of 80,000 log
|
|
|
+vectors in one checkpoint transaction. I'd guess this is a "measure and
|
|
|
+compare" situation that can be done after a working and reviewed implementation
|
|
|
+is in the dev tree....
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Delayed Logging: Checkpoint Sequencing
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+One of the key aspects of the XFS transaction subsystem is that it tags
|
|
|
+committed transactions with the log sequence number of the transaction commit.
|
|
|
+This allows transactions to be issued asynchronously even though there may be
|
|
|
+future operations that cannot be completed until that transaction is fully
|
|
|
+committed to the log. In the rare case that a dependent operation occurs (e.g.
|
|
|
+re-using a freed metadata extent for a data extent), a special, optimised log
|
|
|
+force can be issued to force the dependent transaction to disk immediately.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+To do this, transactions need to record the LSN of the commit record of the
|
|
|
+transaction. This LSN comes directly from the log buffer the transaction is
|
|
|
+written into. While this works just fine for the existing transaction
|
|
|
+mechanism, it does not work for delayed logging because transactions are not
|
|
|
+written directly into the log buffers. Hence some other method of sequencing
|
|
|
+transactions is required.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+As discussed in the checkpoint section, delayed logging uses per-checkpoint
|
|
|
+contexts, and as such it is simple to assign a sequence number to each
|
|
|
+checkpoint. Because the switching of checkpoint contexts must be done
|
|
|
+atomically, it is simple to ensure that each new context has a monotonically
|
|
|
+increasing sequence number assigned to it without the need for an external
|
|
|
+atomic counter - we can just take the current context sequence number and add
|
|
|
+one to it for the new context.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Then, instead of assigning a log buffer LSN to the transaction commit LSN
|
|
|
+during the commit, we can assign the current checkpoint sequence. This allows
|
|
|
+operations that track transactions that have not yet completed know what
|
|
|
+checkpoint sequence needs to be committed before they can continue. As a
|
|
|
+result, the code that forces the log to a specific LSN now needs to ensure that
|
|
|
+the log forces to a specific checkpoint.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+To ensure that we can do this, we need to track all the checkpoint contexts
|
|
|
+that are currently committing to the log. When we flush a checkpoint, the
|
|
|
+context gets added to a "committing" list which can be searched. When a
|
|
|
+checkpoint commit completes, it is removed from the committing list. Because
|
|
|
+the checkpoint context records the LSN of the commit record for the checkpoint,
|
|
|
+we can also wait on the log buffer that contains the commit record, thereby
|
|
|
+using the existing log force mechanisms to execute synchronous forces.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+It should be noted that the synchronous forces may need to be extended with
|
|
|
+mitigation algorithms similar to the current log buffer code to allow
|
|
|
+aggregation of multiple synchronous transactions if there are already
|
|
|
+synchronous transactions being flushed. Investigation of the performance of the
|
|
|
+current design is needed before making any decisions here.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The main concern with log forces is to ensure that all the previous checkpoints
|
|
|
+are also committed to disk before the one we need to wait for. Therefore we
|
|
|
+need to check that all the prior contexts in the committing list are also
|
|
|
+complete before waiting on the one we need to complete. We do this
|
|
|
+synchronisation in the log force code so that we don't need to wait anywhere
|
|
|
+else for such serialisation - it only matters when we do a log force.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The only remaining complexity is that a log force now also has to handle the
|
|
|
+case where the forcing sequence number is the same as the current context. That
|
|
|
+is, we need to flush the CIL and potentially wait for it to complete. This is a
|
|
|
+simple addition to the existing log forcing code to check the sequence numbers
|
|
|
+and push if required. Indeed, placing the current sequence checkpoint flush in
|
|
|
+the log force code enables the current mechanism for issuing synchronous
|
|
|
+transactions to remain untouched (i.e. commit an asynchronous transaction, then
|
|
|
+force the log at the LSN of that transaction) and so the higher level code
|
|
|
+behaves the same regardless of whether delayed logging is being used or not.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Delayed Logging: Checkpoint Log Space Accounting
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The big issue for a checkpoint transaction is the log space reservation for the
|
|
|
+transaction. We don't know how big a checkpoint transaction is going to be
|
|
|
+ahead of time, nor how many log buffers it will take to write out, nor the
|
|
|
+number of split log vector regions are going to be used. We can track the
|
|
|
+amount of log space required as we add items to the commit item list, but we
|
|
|
+still need to reserve the space in the log for the checkpoint.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+A typical transaction reserves enough space in the log for the worst case space
|
|
|
+usage of the transaction. The reservation accounts for log record headers,
|
|
|
+transaction and region headers, headers for split regions, buffer tail padding,
|
|
|
+etc. as well as the actual space for all the changed metadata in the
|
|
|
+transaction. While some of this is fixed overhead, much of it is dependent on
|
|
|
+the size of the transaction and the number of regions being logged (the number
|
|
|
+of log vectors in the transaction).
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+An example of the differences would be logging directory changes versus logging
|
|
|
+inode changes. If you modify lots of inode cores (e.g. chmod -R g+w *), then
|
|
|
+there are lots of transactions that only contain an inode core and an inode log
|
|
|
+format structure. That is, two vectors totaling roughly 150 bytes. If we modify
|
|
|
+10,000 inodes, we have about 1.5MB of metadata to write in 20,000 vectors. Each
|
|
|
+vector is 12 bytes, so the total to be logged is approximately 1.75MB. In
|
|
|
+comparison, if we are logging full directory buffers, they are typically 4KB
|
|
|
+each, so we in 1.5MB of directory buffers we'd have roughly 400 buffers and a
|
|
|
+buffer format structure for each buffer - roughly 800 vectors or 1.51MB total
|
|
|
+space. From this, it should be obvious that a static log space reservation is
|
|
|
+not particularly flexible and is difficult to select the "optimal value" for
|
|
|
+all workloads.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Further, if we are going to use a static reservation, which bit of the entire
|
|
|
+reservation does it cover? We account for space used by the transaction
|
|
|
+reservation by tracking the space currently used by the object in the CIL and
|
|
|
+then calculating the increase or decrease in space used as the object is
|
|
|
+relogged. This allows for a checkpoint reservation to only have to account for
|
|
|
+log buffer metadata used such as log header records.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+However, even using a static reservation for just the log metadata is
|
|
|
+problematic. Typically log record headers use at least 16KB of log space per
|
|
|
+1MB of log space consumed (512 bytes per 32k) and the reservation needs to be
|
|
|
+large enough to handle arbitrary sized checkpoint transactions. This
|
|
|
+reservation needs to be made before the checkpoint is started, and we need to
|
|
|
+be able to reserve the space without sleeping. For a 8MB checkpoint, we need a
|
|
|
+reservation of around 150KB, which is a non-trivial amount of space.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+A static reservation needs to manipulate the log grant counters - we can take a
|
|
|
+permanent reservation on the space, but we still need to make sure we refresh
|
|
|
+the write reservation (the actual space available to the transaction) after
|
|
|
+every checkpoint transaction completion. Unfortunately, if this space is not
|
|
|
+available when required, then the regrant code will sleep waiting for it.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The problem with this is that it can lead to deadlocks as we may need to commit
|
|
|
+checkpoints to be able to free up log space (refer back to the description of
|
|
|
+rolling transactions for an example of this). Hence we *must* always have
|
|
|
+space available in the log if we are to use static reservations, and that is
|
|
|
+very difficult and complex to arrange. It is possible to do, but there is a
|
|
|
+simpler way.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The simpler way of doing this is tracking the entire log space used by the
|
|
|
+items in the CIL and using this to dynamically calculate the amount of log
|
|
|
+space required by the log metadata. If this log metadata space changes as a
|
|
|
+result of a transaction commit inserting a new memory buffer into the CIL, then
|
|
|
+the difference in space required is removed from the transaction that causes
|
|
|
+the change. Transactions at this level will *always* have enough space
|
|
|
+available in their reservation for this as they have already reserved the
|
|
|
+maximal amount of log metadata space they require, and such a delta reservation
|
|
|
+will always be less than or equal to the maximal amount in the reservation.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Hence we can grow the checkpoint transaction reservation dynamically as items
|
|
|
+are added to the CIL and avoid the need for reserving and regranting log space
|
|
|
+up front. This avoids deadlocks and removes a blocking point from the
|
|
|
+checkpoint flush code.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+As mentioned early, transactions can't grow to more than half the size of the
|
|
|
+log. Hence as part of the reservation growing, we need to also check the size
|
|
|
+of the reservation against the maximum allowed transaction size. If we reach
|
|
|
+the maximum threshold, we need to push the CIL to the log. This is effectively
|
|
|
+a "background flush" and is done on demand. This is identical to
|
|
|
+a CIL push triggered by a log force, only that there is no waiting for the
|
|
|
+checkpoint commit to complete. This background push is checked and executed by
|
|
|
+transaction commit code.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+If the transaction subsystem goes idle while we still have items in the CIL,
|
|
|
+they will be flushed by the periodic log force issued by the xfssyncd. This log
|
|
|
+force will push the CIL to disk, and if the transaction subsystem stays idle,
|
|
|
+allow the idle log to be covered (effectively marked clean) in exactly the same
|
|
|
+manner that is done for the existing logging method. A discussion point is
|
|
|
+whether this log force needs to be done more frequently than the current rate
|
|
|
+which is once every 30s.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Delayed Logging: Log Item Pinning
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Currently log items are pinned during transaction commit while the items are
|
|
|
+still locked. This happens just after the items are formatted, though it could
|
|
|
+be done any time before the items are unlocked. The result of this mechanism is
|
|
|
+that items get pinned once for every transaction that is committed to the log
|
|
|
+buffers. Hence items that are relogged in the log buffers will have a pin count
|
|
|
+for every outstanding transaction they were dirtied in. When each of these
|
|
|
+transactions is completed, they will unpin the item once. As a result, the item
|
|
|
+only becomes unpinned when all the transactions complete and there are no
|
|
|
+pending transactions. Thus the pinning and unpinning of a log item is symmetric
|
|
|
+as there is a 1:1 relationship with transaction commit and log item completion.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+For delayed logging, however, we have an assymetric transaction commit to
|
|
|
+completion relationship. Every time an object is relogged in the CIL it goes
|
|
|
+through the commit process without a corresponding completion being registered.
|
|
|
+That is, we now have a many-to-one relationship between transaction commit and
|
|
|
+log item completion. The result of this is that pinning and unpinning of the
|
|
|
+log items becomes unbalanced if we retain the "pin on transaction commit, unpin
|
|
|
+on transaction completion" model.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+To keep pin/unpin symmetry, the algorithm needs to change to a "pin on
|
|
|
+insertion into the CIL, unpin on checkpoint completion". In other words, the
|
|
|
+pinning and unpinning becomes symmetric around a checkpoint context. We have to
|
|
|
+pin the object the first time it is inserted into the CIL - if it is already in
|
|
|
+the CIL during a transaction commit, then we do not pin it again. Because there
|
|
|
+can be multiple outstanding checkpoint contexts, we can still see elevated pin
|
|
|
+counts, but as each checkpoint completes the pin count will retain the correct
|
|
|
+value according to it's context.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Just to make matters more slightly more complex, this checkpoint level context
|
|
|
+for the pin count means that the pinning of an item must take place under the
|
|
|
+CIL commit/flush lock. If we pin the object outside this lock, we cannot
|
|
|
+guarantee which context the pin count is associated with. This is because of
|
|
|
+the fact pinning the item is dependent on whether the item is present in the
|
|
|
+current CIL or not. If we don't pin the CIL first before we check and pin the
|
|
|
+object, we have a race with CIL being flushed between the check and the pin
|
|
|
+(or not pinning, as the case may be). Hence we must hold the CIL flush/commit
|
|
|
+lock to guarantee that we pin the items correctly.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Delayed Logging: Concurrent Scalability
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+A fundamental requirement for the CIL is that accesses through transaction
|
|
|
+commits must scale to many concurrent commits. The current transaction commit
|
|
|
+code does not break down even when there are transactions coming from 2048
|
|
|
+processors at once. The current transaction code does not go any faster than if
|
|
|
+there was only one CPU using it, but it does not slow down either.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+As a result, the delayed logging transaction commit code needs to be designed
|
|
|
+for concurrency from the ground up. It is obvious that there are serialisation
|
|
|
+points in the design - the three important ones are:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ 1. Locking out new transaction commits while flushing the CIL
|
|
|
+ 2. Adding items to the CIL and updating item space accounting
|
|
|
+ 3. Checkpoint commit ordering
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Looking at the transaction commit and CIL flushing interactions, it is clear
|
|
|
+that we have a many-to-one interaction here. That is, the only restriction on
|
|
|
+the number of concurrent transactions that can be trying to commit at once is
|
|
|
+the amount of space available in the log for their reservations. The practical
|
|
|
+limit here is in the order of several hundred concurrent transactions for a
|
|
|
+128MB log, which means that it is generally one per CPU in a machine.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The amount of time a transaction commit needs to hold out a flush is a
|
|
|
+relatively long period of time - the pinning of log items needs to be done
|
|
|
+while we are holding out a CIL flush, so at the moment that means it is held
|
|
|
+across the formatting of the objects into memory buffers (i.e. while memcpy()s
|
|
|
+are in progress). Ultimately a two pass algorithm where the formatting is done
|
|
|
+separately to the pinning of objects could be used to reduce the hold time of
|
|
|
+the transaction commit side.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Because of the number of potential transaction commit side holders, the lock
|
|
|
+really needs to be a sleeping lock - if the CIL flush takes the lock, we do not
|
|
|
+want every other CPU in the machine spinning on the CIL lock. Given that
|
|
|
+flushing the CIL could involve walking a list of tens of thousands of log
|
|
|
+items, it will get held for a significant time and so spin contention is a
|
|
|
+significant concern. Preventing lots of CPUs spinning doing nothing is the
|
|
|
+main reason for choosing a sleeping lock even though nothing in either the
|
|
|
+transaction commit or CIL flush side sleeps with the lock held.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+It should also be noted that CIL flushing is also a relatively rare operation
|
|
|
+compared to transaction commit for asynchronous transaction workloads - only
|
|
|
+time will tell if using a read-write semaphore for exclusion will limit
|
|
|
+transaction commit concurrency due to cache line bouncing of the lock on the
|
|
|
+read side.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The second serialisation point is on the transaction commit side where items
|
|
|
+are inserted into the CIL. Because transactions can enter this code
|
|
|
+concurrently, the CIL needs to be protected separately from the above
|
|
|
+commit/flush exclusion. It also needs to be an exclusive lock but it is only
|
|
|
+held for a very short time and so a spin lock is appropriate here. It is
|
|
|
+possible that this lock will become a contention point, but given the short
|
|
|
+hold time once per transaction I think that contention is unlikely.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The final serialisation point is the checkpoint commit record ordering code
|
|
|
+that is run as part of the checkpoint commit and log force sequencing. The code
|
|
|
+path that triggers a CIL flush (i.e. whatever triggers the log force) will enter
|
|
|
+an ordering loop after writing all the log vectors into the log buffers but
|
|
|
+before writing the commit record. This loop walks the list of committing
|
|
|
+checkpoints and needs to block waiting for checkpoints to complete their commit
|
|
|
+record write. As a result it needs a lock and a wait variable. Log force
|
|
|
+sequencing also requires the same lock, list walk, and blocking mechanism to
|
|
|
+ensure completion of checkpoints.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+These two sequencing operations can use the mechanism even though the
|
|
|
+events they are waiting for are different. The checkpoint commit record
|
|
|
+sequencing needs to wait until checkpoint contexts contain a commit LSN
|
|
|
+(obtained through completion of a commit record write) while log force
|
|
|
+sequencing needs to wait until previous checkpoint contexts are removed from
|
|
|
+the committing list (i.e. they've completed). A simple wait variable and
|
|
|
+broadcast wakeups (thundering herds) has been used to implement these two
|
|
|
+serialisation queues. They use the same lock as the CIL, too. If we see too
|
|
|
+much contention on the CIL lock, or too many context switches as a result of
|
|
|
+the broadcast wakeups these operations can be put under a new spinlock and
|
|
|
+given separate wait lists to reduce lock contention and the number of processes
|
|
|
+woken by the wrong event.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Lifecycle Changes
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The existing log item life cycle is as follows:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ 1. Transaction allocate
|
|
|
+ 2. Transaction reserve
|
|
|
+ 3. Lock item
|
|
|
+ 4. Join item to transaction
|
|
|
+ If not already attached,
|
|
|
+ Allocate log item
|
|
|
+ Attach log item to owner item
|
|
|
+ Attach log item to transaction
|
|
|
+ 5. Modify item
|
|
|
+ Record modifications in log item
|
|
|
+ 6. Transaction commit
|
|
|
+ Pin item in memory
|
|
|
+ Format item into log buffer
|
|
|
+ Write commit LSN into transaction
|
|
|
+ Unlock item
|
|
|
+ Attach transaction to log buffer
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ <log buffer IO dispatched>
|
|
|
+ <log buffer IO completes>
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ 7. Transaction completion
|
|
|
+ Mark log item committed
|
|
|
+ Insert log item into AIL
|
|
|
+ Write commit LSN into log item
|
|
|
+ Unpin log item
|
|
|
+ 8. AIL traversal
|
|
|
+ Lock item
|
|
|
+ Mark log item clean
|
|
|
+ Flush item to disk
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ <item IO completion>
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ 9. Log item removed from AIL
|
|
|
+ Moves log tail
|
|
|
+ Item unlocked
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Essentially, steps 1-6 operate independently from step 7, which is also
|
|
|
+independent of steps 8-9. An item can be locked in steps 1-6 or steps 8-9
|
|
|
+at the same time step 7 is occurring, but only steps 1-6 or 8-9 can occur
|
|
|
+at the same time. If the log item is in the AIL or between steps 6 and 7
|
|
|
+and steps 1-6 are re-entered, then the item is relogged. Only when steps 8-9
|
|
|
+are entered and completed is the object considered clean.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+With delayed logging, there are new steps inserted into the life cycle:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ 1. Transaction allocate
|
|
|
+ 2. Transaction reserve
|
|
|
+ 3. Lock item
|
|
|
+ 4. Join item to transaction
|
|
|
+ If not already attached,
|
|
|
+ Allocate log item
|
|
|
+ Attach log item to owner item
|
|
|
+ Attach log item to transaction
|
|
|
+ 5. Modify item
|
|
|
+ Record modifications in log item
|
|
|
+ 6. Transaction commit
|
|
|
+ Pin item in memory if not pinned in CIL
|
|
|
+ Format item into log vector + buffer
|
|
|
+ Attach log vector and buffer to log item
|
|
|
+ Insert log item into CIL
|
|
|
+ Write CIL context sequence into transaction
|
|
|
+ Unlock item
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ <next log force>
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ 7. CIL push
|
|
|
+ lock CIL flush
|
|
|
+ Chain log vectors and buffers together
|
|
|
+ Remove items from CIL
|
|
|
+ unlock CIL flush
|
|
|
+ write log vectors into log
|
|
|
+ sequence commit records
|
|
|
+ attach checkpoint context to log buffer
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ <log buffer IO dispatched>
|
|
|
+ <log buffer IO completes>
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ 8. Checkpoint completion
|
|
|
+ Mark log item committed
|
|
|
+ Insert item into AIL
|
|
|
+ Write commit LSN into log item
|
|
|
+ Unpin log item
|
|
|
+ 9. AIL traversal
|
|
|
+ Lock item
|
|
|
+ Mark log item clean
|
|
|
+ Flush item to disk
|
|
|
+ <item IO completion>
|
|
|
+ 10. Log item removed from AIL
|
|
|
+ Moves log tail
|
|
|
+ Item unlocked
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+From this, it can be seen that the only life cycle differences between the two
|
|
|
+logging methods are in the middle of the life cycle - they still have the same
|
|
|
+beginning and end and execution constraints. The only differences are in the
|
|
|
+commiting of the log items to the log itself and the completion processing.
|
|
|
+Hence delayed logging should not introduce any constraints on log item
|
|
|
+behaviour, allocation or freeing that don't already exist.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+As a result of this zero-impact "insertion" of delayed logging infrastructure
|
|
|
+and the design of the internal structures to avoid on disk format changes, we
|
|
|
+can basically switch between delayed logging and the existing mechanism with a
|
|
|
+mount option. Fundamentally, there is no reason why the log manager would not
|
|
|
+be able to swap methods automatically and transparently depending on load
|
|
|
+characteristics, but this should not be necessary if delayed logging works as
|
|
|
+designed.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Roadmap:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+2.6.35 Inclusion in mainline as an experimental mount option
|
|
|
+ => approximately 2-3 months to merge window
|
|
|
+ => needs to be in xfs-dev tree in 4-6 weeks
|
|
|
+ => code is nearing readiness for review
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+2.6.37 Remove experimental tag from mount option
|
|
|
+ => should be roughly 6 months after initial merge
|
|
|
+ => enough time to:
|
|
|
+ => gain confidence and fix problems reported by early
|
|
|
+ adopters (a.k.a. guinea pigs)
|
|
|
+ => address worst performance regressions and undesired
|
|
|
+ behaviours
|
|
|
+ => start tuning/optimising code for parallelism
|
|
|
+ => start tuning/optimising algorithms consuming
|
|
|
+ excessive CPU time
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+2.6.39 Switch default mount option to use delayed logging
|
|
|
+ => should be roughly 12 months after initial merge
|
|
|
+ => enough time to shake out remaining problems before next round of
|
|
|
+ enterprise distro kernel rebases
|