mirror of https://gitee.com/openkylin/linux.git
279 lines
14 KiB
Plaintext
279 lines
14 KiB
Plaintext
|
MOTIVATION
|
||
|
|
||
|
Cleancache is a new optional feature provided by the VFS layer that
|
||
|
potentially dramatically increases page cache effectiveness for
|
||
|
many workloads in many environments at a negligible cost.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Cleancache can be thought of as a page-granularity victim cache for clean
|
||
|
pages that the kernel's pageframe replacement algorithm (PFRA) would like
|
||
|
to keep around, but can't since there isn't enough memory. So when the
|
||
|
PFRA "evicts" a page, it first attempts to use cleancache code to
|
||
|
put the data contained in that page into "transcendent memory", memory
|
||
|
that is not directly accessible or addressable by the kernel and is
|
||
|
of unknown and possibly time-varying size.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Later, when a cleancache-enabled filesystem wishes to access a page
|
||
|
in a file on disk, it first checks cleancache to see if it already
|
||
|
contains it; if it does, the page of data is copied into the kernel
|
||
|
and a disk access is avoided.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Transcendent memory "drivers" for cleancache are currently implemented
|
||
|
in Xen (using hypervisor memory) and zcache (using in-kernel compressed
|
||
|
memory) and other implementations are in development.
|
||
|
|
||
|
FAQs are included below.
|
||
|
|
||
|
IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW
|
||
|
|
||
|
A cleancache "backend" that provides transcendent memory registers itself
|
||
|
to the kernel's cleancache "frontend" by calling cleancache_register_ops,
|
||
|
passing a pointer to a cleancache_ops structure with funcs set appropriately.
|
||
|
Note that cleancache_register_ops returns the previous settings so that
|
||
|
chaining can be performed if desired. The functions provided must conform to
|
||
|
certain semantics as follows:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Most important, cleancache is "ephemeral". Pages which are copied into
|
||
|
cleancache have an indefinite lifetime which is completely unknowable
|
||
|
by the kernel and so may or may not still be in cleancache at any later time.
|
||
|
Thus, as its name implies, cleancache is not suitable for dirty pages.
|
||
|
Cleancache has complete discretion over what pages to preserve and what
|
||
|
pages to discard and when.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Mounting a cleancache-enabled filesystem should call "init_fs" to obtain a
|
||
|
pool id which, if positive, must be saved in the filesystem's superblock;
|
||
|
a negative return value indicates failure. A "put_page" will copy a
|
||
|
(presumably about-to-be-evicted) page into cleancache and associate it with
|
||
|
the pool id, a file key, and a page index into the file. (The combination
|
||
|
of a pool id, a file key, and an index is sometimes called a "handle".)
|
||
|
A "get_page" will copy the page, if found, from cleancache into kernel memory.
|
||
|
A "flush_page" will ensure the page no longer is present in cleancache;
|
||
|
a "flush_inode" will flush all pages associated with the specified file;
|
||
|
and, when a filesystem is unmounted, a "flush_fs" will flush all pages in
|
||
|
all files specified by the given pool id and also surrender the pool id.
|
||
|
|
||
|
An "init_shared_fs", like init_fs, obtains a pool id but tells cleancache
|
||
|
to treat the pool as shared using a 128-bit UUID as a key. On systems
|
||
|
that may run multiple kernels (such as hard partitioned or virtualized
|
||
|
systems) that may share a clustered filesystem, and where cleancache
|
||
|
may be shared among those kernels, calls to init_shared_fs that specify the
|
||
|
same UUID will receive the same pool id, thus allowing the pages to
|
||
|
be shared. Note that any security requirements must be imposed outside
|
||
|
of the kernel (e.g. by "tools" that control cleancache). Or a
|
||
|
cleancache implementation can simply disable shared_init by always
|
||
|
returning a negative value.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If a get_page is successful on a non-shared pool, the page is flushed (thus
|
||
|
making cleancache an "exclusive" cache). On a shared pool, the page
|
||
|
is NOT flushed on a successful get_page so that it remains accessible to
|
||
|
other sharers. The kernel is responsible for ensuring coherency between
|
||
|
cleancache (shared or not), the page cache, and the filesystem, using
|
||
|
cleancache flush operations as required.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Note that cleancache must enforce put-put-get coherency and get-get
|
||
|
coherency. For the former, if two puts are made to the same handle but
|
||
|
with different data, say AAA by the first put and BBB by the second, a
|
||
|
subsequent get can never return the stale data (AAA). For get-get coherency,
|
||
|
if a get for a given handle fails, subsequent gets for that handle will
|
||
|
never succeed unless preceded by a successful put with that handle.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Last, cleancache provides no SMP serialization guarantees; if two
|
||
|
different Linux threads are simultaneously putting and flushing a page
|
||
|
with the same handle, the results are indeterminate. Callers must
|
||
|
lock the page to ensure serial behavior.
|
||
|
|
||
|
CLEANCACHE PERFORMANCE METRICS
|
||
|
|
||
|
Cleancache monitoring is done by sysfs files in the
|
||
|
/sys/kernel/mm/cleancache directory. The effectiveness of cleancache
|
||
|
can be measured (across all filesystems) with:
|
||
|
|
||
|
succ_gets - number of gets that were successful
|
||
|
failed_gets - number of gets that failed
|
||
|
puts - number of puts attempted (all "succeed")
|
||
|
flushes - number of flushes attempted
|
||
|
|
||
|
A backend implementatation may provide additional metrics.
|
||
|
|
||
|
FAQ
|
||
|
|
||
|
1) Where's the value? (Andrew Morton)
|
||
|
|
||
|
Cleancache provides a significant performance benefit to many workloads
|
||
|
in many environments with negligible overhead by improving the
|
||
|
effectiveness of the pagecache. Clean pagecache pages are
|
||
|
saved in transcendent memory (RAM that is otherwise not directly
|
||
|
addressable to the kernel); fetching those pages later avoids "refaults"
|
||
|
and thus disk reads.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Cleancache (and its sister code "frontswap") provide interfaces for
|
||
|
this transcendent memory (aka "tmem"), which conceptually lies between
|
||
|
fast kernel-directly-addressable RAM and slower DMA/asynchronous devices.
|
||
|
Disallowing direct kernel or userland reads/writes to tmem
|
||
|
is ideal when data is transformed to a different form and size (such
|
||
|
as with compression) or secretly moved (as might be useful for write-
|
||
|
balancing for some RAM-like devices). Evicted page-cache pages (and
|
||
|
swap pages) are a great use for this kind of slower-than-RAM-but-much-
|
||
|
faster-than-disk transcendent memory, and the cleancache (and frontswap)
|
||
|
"page-object-oriented" specification provides a nice way to read and
|
||
|
write -- and indirectly "name" -- the pages.
|
||
|
|
||
|
In the virtual case, the whole point of virtualization is to statistically
|
||
|
multiplex physical resources across the varying demands of multiple
|
||
|
virtual machines. This is really hard to do with RAM and efforts to
|
||
|
do it well with no kernel change have essentially failed (except in some
|
||
|
well-publicized special-case workloads). Cleancache -- and frontswap --
|
||
|
with a fairly small impact on the kernel, provide a huge amount
|
||
|
of flexibility for more dynamic, flexible RAM multiplexing.
|
||
|
Specifically, the Xen Transcendent Memory backend allows otherwise
|
||
|
"fallow" hypervisor-owned RAM to not only be "time-shared" between multiple
|
||
|
virtual machines, but the pages can be compressed and deduplicated to
|
||
|
optimize RAM utilization. And when guest OS's are induced to surrender
|
||
|
underutilized RAM (e.g. with "self-ballooning"), page cache pages
|
||
|
are the first to go, and cleancache allows those pages to be
|
||
|
saved and reclaimed if overall host system memory conditions allow.
|
||
|
|
||
|
And the identical interface used for cleancache can be used in
|
||
|
physical systems as well. The zcache driver acts as a memory-hungry
|
||
|
device that stores pages of data in a compressed state. And
|
||
|
the proposed "RAMster" driver shares RAM across multiple physical
|
||
|
systems.
|
||
|
|
||
|
2) Why does cleancache have its sticky fingers so deep inside the
|
||
|
filesystems and VFS? (Andrew Morton and Christoph Hellwig)
|
||
|
|
||
|
The core hooks for cleancache in VFS are in most cases a single line
|
||
|
and the minimum set are placed precisely where needed to maintain
|
||
|
coherency (via cleancache_flush operations) between cleancache,
|
||
|
the page cache, and disk. All hooks compile into nothingness if
|
||
|
cleancache is config'ed off and turn into a function-pointer-
|
||
|
compare-to-NULL if config'ed on but no backend claims the ops
|
||
|
functions, or to a compare-struct-element-to-negative if a
|
||
|
backend claims the ops functions but a filesystem doesn't enable
|
||
|
cleancache.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Some filesystems are built entirely on top of VFS and the hooks
|
||
|
in VFS are sufficient, so don't require an "init_fs" hook; the
|
||
|
initial implementation of cleancache didn't provide this hook.
|
||
|
But for some filesystems (such as btrfs), the VFS hooks are
|
||
|
incomplete and one or more hooks in fs-specific code are required.
|
||
|
And for some other filesystems, such as tmpfs, cleancache may
|
||
|
be counterproductive. So it seemed prudent to require a filesystem
|
||
|
to "opt in" to use cleancache, which requires adding a hook in
|
||
|
each filesystem. Not all filesystems are supported by cleancache
|
||
|
only because they haven't been tested. The existing set should
|
||
|
be sufficient to validate the concept, the opt-in approach means
|
||
|
that untested filesystems are not affected, and the hooks in the
|
||
|
existing filesystems should make it very easy to add more
|
||
|
filesystems in the future.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The total impact of the hooks to existing fs and mm files is only
|
||
|
about 40 lines added (not counting comments and blank lines).
|
||
|
|
||
|
3) Why not make cleancache asynchronous and batched so it can
|
||
|
more easily interface with real devices with DMA instead
|
||
|
of copying each individual page? (Minchan Kim)
|
||
|
|
||
|
The one-page-at-a-time copy semantics simplifies the implementation
|
||
|
on both the frontend and backend and also allows the backend to
|
||
|
do fancy things on-the-fly like page compression and
|
||
|
page deduplication. And since the data is "gone" (copied into/out
|
||
|
of the pageframe) before the cleancache get/put call returns,
|
||
|
a great deal of race conditions and potential coherency issues
|
||
|
are avoided. While the interface seems odd for a "real device"
|
||
|
or for real kernel-addressable RAM, it makes perfect sense for
|
||
|
transcendent memory.
|
||
|
|
||
|
4) Why is non-shared cleancache "exclusive"? And where is the
|
||
|
page "flushed" after a "get"? (Minchan Kim)
|
||
|
|
||
|
The main reason is to free up space in transcendent memory and
|
||
|
to avoid unnecessary cleancache_flush calls. If you want inclusive,
|
||
|
the page can be "put" immediately following the "get". If
|
||
|
put-after-get for inclusive becomes common, the interface could
|
||
|
be easily extended to add a "get_no_flush" call.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The flush is done by the cleancache backend implementation.
|
||
|
|
||
|
5) What's the performance impact?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Performance analysis has been presented at OLS'09 and LCA'10.
|
||
|
Briefly, performance gains can be significant on most workloads,
|
||
|
especially when memory pressure is high (e.g. when RAM is
|
||
|
overcommitted in a virtual workload); and because the hooks are
|
||
|
invoked primarily in place of or in addition to a disk read/write,
|
||
|
overhead is negligible even in worst case workloads. Basically
|
||
|
cleancache replaces I/O with memory-copy-CPU-overhead; on older
|
||
|
single-core systems with slow memory-copy speeds, cleancache
|
||
|
has little value, but in newer multicore machines, especially
|
||
|
consolidated/virtualized machines, it has great value.
|
||
|
|
||
|
6) How do I add cleancache support for filesystem X? (Boaz Harrash)
|
||
|
|
||
|
Filesystems that are well-behaved and conform to certain
|
||
|
restrictions can utilize cleancache simply by making a call to
|
||
|
cleancache_init_fs at mount time. Unusual, misbehaving, or
|
||
|
poorly layered filesystems must either add additional hooks
|
||
|
and/or undergo extensive additional testing... or should just
|
||
|
not enable the optional cleancache.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Some points for a filesystem to consider:
|
||
|
|
||
|
- The FS should be block-device-based (e.g. a ram-based FS such
|
||
|
as tmpfs should not enable cleancache)
|
||
|
- To ensure coherency/correctness, the FS must ensure that all
|
||
|
file removal or truncation operations either go through VFS or
|
||
|
add hooks to do the equivalent cleancache "flush" operations
|
||
|
- To ensure coherency/correctness, either inode numbers must
|
||
|
be unique across the lifetime of the on-disk file OR the
|
||
|
FS must provide an "encode_fh" function.
|
||
|
- The FS must call the VFS superblock alloc and deactivate routines
|
||
|
or add hooks to do the equivalent cleancache calls done there.
|
||
|
- To maximize performance, all pages fetched from the FS should
|
||
|
go through the do_mpag_readpage routine or the FS should add
|
||
|
hooks to do the equivalent (cf. btrfs)
|
||
|
- Currently, the FS blocksize must be the same as PAGESIZE. This
|
||
|
is not an architectural restriction, but no backends currently
|
||
|
support anything different.
|
||
|
- A clustered FS should invoke the "shared_init_fs" cleancache
|
||
|
hook to get best performance for some backends.
|
||
|
|
||
|
7) Why not use the KVA of the inode as the key? (Christoph Hellwig)
|
||
|
|
||
|
If cleancache would use the inode virtual address instead of
|
||
|
inode/filehandle, the pool id could be eliminated. But, this
|
||
|
won't work because cleancache retains pagecache data pages
|
||
|
persistently even when the inode has been pruned from the
|
||
|
inode unused list, and only flushes the data page if the file
|
||
|
gets removed/truncated. So if cleancache used the inode kva,
|
||
|
there would be potential coherency issues if/when the inode
|
||
|
kva is reused for a different file. Alternately, if cleancache
|
||
|
flushed the pages when the inode kva was freed, much of the value
|
||
|
of cleancache would be lost because the cache of pages in cleanache
|
||
|
is potentially much larger than the kernel pagecache and is most
|
||
|
useful if the pages survive inode cache removal.
|
||
|
|
||
|
8) Why is a global variable required?
|
||
|
|
||
|
The cleancache_enabled flag is checked in all of the frequently-used
|
||
|
cleancache hooks. The alternative is a function call to check a static
|
||
|
variable. Since cleancache is enabled dynamically at runtime, systems
|
||
|
that don't enable cleancache would suffer thousands (possibly
|
||
|
tens-of-thousands) of unnecessary function calls per second. So the
|
||
|
global variable allows cleancache to be enabled by default at compile
|
||
|
time, but have insignificant performance impact when cleancache remains
|
||
|
disabled at runtime.
|
||
|
|
||
|
9) Does cleanache work with KVM?
|
||
|
|
||
|
The memory model of KVM is sufficiently different that a cleancache
|
||
|
backend may have less value for KVM. This remains to be tested,
|
||
|
especially in an overcommitted system.
|
||
|
|
||
|
10) Does cleancache work in userspace? It sounds useful for
|
||
|
memory hungry caches like web browsers. (Jamie Lokier)
|
||
|
|
||
|
No plans yet, though we agree it sounds useful, at least for
|
||
|
apps that bypass the page cache (e.g. O_DIRECT).
|
||
|
|
||
|
Last updated: Dan Magenheimer, April 13 2011
|