Based on kernel version 4.7.2. Page generated on 2016-08-22 22:45 EST.
1 XFS Delayed Logging Design 2 -------------------------- 3 4 Introduction to Re-logging in XFS 5 --------------------------------- 6 7 XFS logging is a combination of logical and physical logging. Some objects, 8 such as inodes and dquots, are logged in logical format where the details 9 logged are made up of the changes to in-core structures rather than on-disk 10 structures. Other objects - typically buffers - have their physical changes 11 logged. The reason for these differences is to reduce the amount of log space 12 required for objects that are frequently logged. Some parts of inodes are more 13 frequently logged than others, and inodes are typically more frequently logged 14 than any other object (except maybe the superblock buffer) so keeping the 15 amount of metadata logged low is of prime importance. 16 17 The reason that this is such a concern is that XFS allows multiple separate 18 modifications to a single object to be carried in the log at any given time. 19 This allows the log to avoid needing to flush each change to disk before 20 recording a new change to the object. XFS does this via a method called 21 "re-logging". Conceptually, this is quite simple - all it requires is that any 22 new change to the object is recorded with a *new copy* of all the existing 23 changes in the new transaction that is written to the log. 24 25 That is, if we have a sequence of changes A through to F, and the object was 26 written to disk after change D, we would see in the log the following series 27 of transactions, their contents and the log sequence number (LSN) of the 28 transaction: 29 30 Transaction Contents LSN 31 A A X 32 B A+B X+n 33 C A+B+C X+n+m 34 D A+B+C+D X+n+m+o 35 <object written to disk> 36 E E Y (> X+n+m+o) 37 F E+F Yٍ+p 38 39 In other words, each time an object is relogged, the new transaction contains 40 the aggregation of all the previous changes currently held only in the log. 41 42 This relogging technique also allows objects to be moved forward in the log so 43 that an object being relogged does not prevent the tail of the log from ever 44 moving forward. This can be seen in the table above by the changing 45 (increasing) LSN of each subsequent transaction - the LSN is effectively a 46 direct encoding of the location in the log of the transaction. 47 48 This relogging is also used to implement long-running, multiple-commit 49 transactions. These transaction are known as rolling transactions, and require 50 a special log reservation known as a permanent transaction reservation. A 51 typical example of a rolling transaction is the removal of extents from an 52 inode which can only be done at a rate of two extents per transaction because 53 of reservation size limitations. Hence a rolling extent removal transaction 54 keeps relogging the inode and btree buffers as they get modified in each 55 removal operation. This keeps them moving forward in the log as the operation 56 progresses, ensuring that current operation never gets blocked by itself if the 57 log wraps around. 58 59 Hence it can be seen that the relogging operation is fundamental to the correct 60 working of the XFS journalling subsystem. From the above description, most 61 people should be able to see why the XFS metadata operations writes so much to 62 the log - repeated operations to the same objects write the same changes to 63 the log over and over again. Worse is the fact that objects tend to get 64 dirtier as they get relogged, so each subsequent transaction is writing more 65 metadata into the log. 66 67 Another feature of the XFS transaction subsystem is that most transactions are 68 asynchronous. That is, they don't commit to disk until either a log buffer is 69 filled (a log buffer can hold multiple transactions) or a synchronous operation 70 forces the log buffers holding the transactions to disk. This means that XFS is 71 doing aggregation of transactions in memory - batching them, if you like - to 72 minimise the impact of the log IO on transaction throughput. 73 74 The limitation on asynchronous transaction throughput is the number and size of 75 log buffers made available by the log manager. By default there are 8 log 76 buffers available and the size of each is 32kB - the size can be increased up 77 to 256kB by use of a mount option. 78 79 Effectively, this gives us the maximum bound of outstanding metadata changes 80 that can be made to the filesystem at any point in time - if all the log 81 buffers are full and under IO, then no more transactions can be committed until 82 the current batch completes. It is now common for a single current CPU core to 83 be to able to issue enough transactions to keep the log buffers full and under 84 IO permanently. Hence the XFS journalling subsystem can be considered to be IO 85 bound. 86 87 Delayed Logging: Concepts 88 ------------------------- 89 90 The key thing to note about the asynchronous logging combined with the 91 relogging technique XFS uses is that we can be relogging changed objects 92 multiple times before they are committed to disk in the log buffers. If we 93 return to the previous relogging example, it is entirely possible that 94 transactions A through D are committed to disk in the same log buffer. 95 96 That is, a single log buffer may contain multiple copies of the same object, 97 but only one of those copies needs to be there - the last one "D", as it 98 contains all the changes from the previous changes. In other words, we have one 99 necessary copy in the log buffer, and three stale copies that are simply 100 wasting space. When we are doing repeated operations on the same set of 101 objects, these "stale objects" can be over 90% of the space used in the log 102 buffers. It is clear that reducing the number of stale objects written to the 103 log would greatly reduce the amount of metadata we write to the log, and this 104 is the fundamental goal of delayed logging. 105 106 From a conceptual point of view, XFS is already doing relogging in memory (where 107 memory == log buffer), only it is doing it extremely inefficiently. It is using 108 logical to physical formatting to do the relogging because there is no 109 infrastructure to keep track of logical changes in memory prior to physically 110 formatting the changes in a transaction to the log buffer. Hence we cannot avoid 111 accumulating stale objects in the log buffers. 112 113 Delayed logging is the name we've given to keeping and tracking transactional 114 changes to objects in memory outside the log buffer infrastructure. Because of 115 the relogging concept fundamental to the XFS journalling subsystem, this is 116 actually relatively easy to do - all the changes to logged items are already 117 tracked in the current infrastructure. The big problem is how to accumulate 118 them and get them to the log in a consistent, recoverable manner. 119 Describing the problems and how they have been solved is the focus of this 120 document. 121 122 One of the key changes that delayed logging makes to the operation of the 123 journalling subsystem is that it disassociates the amount of outstanding 124 metadata changes from the size and number of log buffers available. In other 125 words, instead of there only being a maximum of 2MB of transaction changes not 126 written to the log at any point in time, there may be a much greater amount 127 being accumulated in memory. Hence the potential for loss of metadata on a 128 crash is much greater than for the existing logging mechanism. 129 130 It should be noted that this does not change the guarantee that log recovery 131 will result in a consistent filesystem. What it does mean is that as far as the 132 recovered filesystem is concerned, there may be many thousands of transactions 133 that simply did not occur as a result of the crash. This makes it even more 134 important that applications that care about their data use fsync() where they 135 need to ensure application level data integrity is maintained. 136 137 It should be noted that delayed logging is not an innovative new concept that 138 warrants rigorous proofs to determine whether it is correct or not. The method 139 of accumulating changes in memory for some period before writing them to the 140 log is used effectively in many filesystems including ext3 and ext4. Hence 141 no time is spent in this document trying to convince the reader that the 142 concept is sound. Instead it is simply considered a "solved problem" and as 143 such implementing it in XFS is purely an exercise in software engineering. 144 145 The fundamental requirements for delayed logging in XFS are simple: 146 147 1. Reduce the amount of metadata written to the log by at least 148 an order of magnitude. 149 2. Supply sufficient statistics to validate Requirement #1. 150 3. Supply sufficient new tracing infrastructure to be able to debug 151 problems with the new code. 152 4. No on-disk format change (metadata or log format). 153 5. Enable and disable with a mount option. 154 6. No performance regressions for synchronous transaction workloads. 155 156 Delayed Logging: Design 157 ----------------------- 158 159 Storing Changes 160 161 The problem with accumulating changes at a logical level (i.e. just using the 162 existing log item dirty region tracking) is that when it comes to writing the 163 changes to the log buffers, we need to ensure that the object we are formatting 164 is not changing while we do this. This requires locking the object to prevent 165 concurrent modification. Hence flushing the logical changes to the log would 166 require us to lock every object, format them, and then unlock them again. 167 168 This introduces lots of scope for deadlocks with transactions that are already 169 running. For example, a transaction has object A locked and modified, but needs 170 the delayed logging tracking lock to commit the transaction. However, the 171 flushing thread has the delayed logging tracking lock already held, and is 172 trying to get the lock on object A to flush it to the log buffer. This appears 173 to be an unsolvable deadlock condition, and it was solving this problem that 174 was the barrier to implementing delayed logging for so long. 175 176 The solution is relatively simple - it just took a long time to recognise it. 177 Put simply, the current logging code formats the changes to each item into an 178 vector array that points to the changed regions in the item. The log write code 179 simply copies the memory these vectors point to into the log buffer during 180 transaction commit while the item is locked in the transaction. Instead of 181 using the log buffer as the destination of the formatting code, we can use an 182 allocated memory buffer big enough to fit the formatted vector. 183 184 If we then copy the vector into the memory buffer and rewrite the vector to 185 point to the memory buffer rather than the object itself, we now have a copy of 186 the changes in a format that is compatible with the log buffer writing code. 187 that does not require us to lock the item to access. This formatting and 188 rewriting can all be done while the object is locked during transaction commit, 189 resulting in a vector that is transactionally consistent and can be accessed 190 without needing to lock the owning item. 191 192 Hence we avoid the need to lock items when we need to flush outstanding 193 asynchronous transactions to the log. The differences between the existing 194 formatting method and the delayed logging formatting can be seen in the 195 diagram below. 196 197 Current format log vector: 198 199 Object +---------------------------------------------+ 200 Vector 1 +----+ 201 Vector 2 +----+ 202 Vector 3 +----------+ 203 204 After formatting: 205 206 Log Buffer +-V1-+-V2-+----V3----+ 207 208 Delayed logging vector: 209 210 Object +---------------------------------------------+ 211 Vector 1 +----+ 212 Vector 2 +----+ 213 Vector 3 +----------+ 214 215 After formatting: 216 217 Memory Buffer +-V1-+-V2-+----V3----+ 218 Vector 1 +----+ 219 Vector 2 +----+ 220 Vector 3 +----------+ 221 222 The memory buffer and associated vector need to be passed as a single object, 223 but still need to be associated with the parent object so if the object is 224 relogged we can replace the current memory buffer with a new memory buffer that 225 contains the latest changes. 226 227 The reason for keeping the vector around after we've formatted the memory 228 buffer is to support splitting vectors across log buffer boundaries correctly. 229 If we don't keep the vector around, we do not know where the region boundaries 230 are in the item, so we'd need a new encapsulation method for regions in the log 231 buffer writing (i.e. double encapsulation). This would be an on-disk format 232 change and as such is not desirable. It also means we'd have to write the log 233 region headers in the formatting stage, which is problematic as there is per 234 region state that needs to be placed into the headers during the log write. 235 236 Hence we need to keep the vector, but by attaching the memory buffer to it and 237 rewriting the vector addresses to point at the memory buffer we end up with a 238 self-describing object that can be passed to the log buffer write code to be 239 handled in exactly the same manner as the existing log vectors are handled. 240 Hence we avoid needing a new on-disk format to handle items that have been 241 relogged in memory. 242 243 244 Tracking Changes 245 246 Now that we can record transactional changes in memory in a form that allows 247 them to be used without limitations, we need to be able to track and accumulate 248 them so that they can be written to the log at some later point in time. The 249 log item is the natural place to store this vector and buffer, and also makes sense 250 to be the object that is used to track committed objects as it will always 251 exist once the object has been included in a transaction. 252 253 The log item is already used to track the log items that have been written to 254 the log but not yet written to disk. Such log items are considered "active" 255 and as such are stored in the Active Item List (AIL) which is a LSN-ordered 256 double linked list. Items are inserted into this list during log buffer IO 257 completion, after which they are unpinned and can be written to disk. An object 258 that is in the AIL can be relogged, which causes the object to be pinned again 259 and then moved forward in the AIL when the log buffer IO completes for that 260 transaction. 261 262 Essentially, this shows that an item that is in the AIL can still be modified 263 and relogged, so any tracking must be separate to the AIL infrastructure. As 264 such, we cannot reuse the AIL list pointers for tracking committed items, nor 265 can we store state in any field that is protected by the AIL lock. Hence the 266 committed item tracking needs it's own locks, lists and state fields in the log 267 item. 268 269 Similar to the AIL, tracking of committed items is done through a new list 270 called the Committed Item List (CIL). The list tracks log items that have been 271 committed and have formatted memory buffers attached to them. It tracks objects 272 in transaction commit order, so when an object is relogged it is removed from 273 it's place in the list and re-inserted at the tail. This is entirely arbitrary 274 and done to make it easy for debugging - the last items in the list are the 275 ones that are most recently modified. Ordering of the CIL is not necessary for 276 transactional integrity (as discussed in the next section) so the ordering is 277 done for convenience/sanity of the developers. 278 279 280 Delayed Logging: Checkpoints 281 282 When we have a log synchronisation event, commonly known as a "log force", 283 all the items in the CIL must be written into the log via the log buffers. 284 We need to write these items in the order that they exist in the CIL, and they 285 need to be written as an atomic transaction. The need for all the objects to be 286 written as an atomic transaction comes from the requirements of relogging and 287 log replay - all the changes in all the objects in a given transaction must 288 either be completely replayed during log recovery, or not replayed at all. If 289 a transaction is not replayed because it is not complete in the log, then 290 no later transactions should be replayed, either. 291 292 To fulfill this requirement, we need to write the entire CIL in a single log 293 transaction. Fortunately, the XFS log code has no fixed limit on the size of a 294 transaction, nor does the log replay code. The only fundamental limit is that 295 the transaction cannot be larger than just under half the size of the log. The 296 reason for this limit is that to find the head and tail of the log, there must 297 be at least one complete transaction in the log at any given time. If a 298 transaction is larger than half the log, then there is the possibility that a 299 crash during the write of a such a transaction could partially overwrite the 300 only complete previous transaction in the log. This will result in a recovery 301 failure and an inconsistent filesystem and hence we must enforce the maximum 302 size of a checkpoint to be slightly less than a half the log. 303 304 Apart from this size requirement, a checkpoint transaction looks no different 305 to any other transaction - it contains a transaction header, a series of 306 formatted log items and a commit record at the tail. From a recovery 307 perspective, the checkpoint transaction is also no different - just a lot 308 bigger with a lot more items in it. The worst case effect of this is that we 309 might need to tune the recovery transaction object hash size. 310 311 Because the checkpoint is just another transaction and all the changes to log 312 items are stored as log vectors, we can use the existing log buffer writing 313 code to write the changes into the log. To do this efficiently, we need to 314 minimise the time we hold the CIL locked while writing the checkpoint 315 transaction. The current log write code enables us to do this easily with the 316 way it separates the writing of the transaction contents (the log vectors) from 317 the transaction commit record, but tracking this requires us to have a 318 per-checkpoint context that travels through the log write process through to 319 checkpoint completion. 320 321 Hence a checkpoint has a context that tracks the state of the current 322 checkpoint from initiation to checkpoint completion. A new context is initiated 323 at the same time a checkpoint transaction is started. That is, when we remove 324 all the current items from the CIL during a checkpoint operation, we move all 325 those changes into the current checkpoint context. We then initialise a new 326 context and attach that to the CIL for aggregation of new transactions. 327 328 This allows us to unlock the CIL immediately after transfer of all the 329 committed items and effectively allow new transactions to be issued while we 330 are formatting the checkpoint into the log. It also allows concurrent 331 checkpoints to be written into the log buffers in the case of log force heavy 332 workloads, just like the existing transaction commit code does. This, however, 333 requires that we strictly order the commit records in the log so that 334 checkpoint sequence order is maintained during log replay. 335 336 To ensure that we can be writing an item into a checkpoint transaction at 337 the same time another transaction modifies the item and inserts the log item 338 into the new CIL, then checkpoint transaction commit code cannot use log items 339 to store the list of log vectors that need to be written into the transaction. 340 Hence log vectors need to be able to be chained together to allow them to be 341 detached from the log items. That is, when the CIL is flushed the memory 342 buffer and log vector attached to each log item needs to be attached to the 343 checkpoint context so that the log item can be released. In diagrammatic form, 344 the CIL would look like this before the flush: 345 346 CIL Head 347 | 348 V 349 Log Item <-> log vector 1 -> memory buffer 350 | -> vector array 351 V 352 Log Item <-> log vector 2 -> memory buffer 353 | -> vector array 354 V 355 ...... 356 | 357 V 358 Log Item <-> log vector N-1 -> memory buffer 359 | -> vector array 360 V 361 Log Item <-> log vector N -> memory buffer 362 -> vector array 363 364 And after the flush the CIL head is empty, and the checkpoint context log 365 vector list would look like: 366 367 Checkpoint Context 368 | 369 V 370 log vector 1 -> memory buffer 371 | -> vector array 372 | -> Log Item 373 V 374 log vector 2 -> memory buffer 375 | -> vector array 376 | -> Log Item 377 V 378 ...... 379 | 380 V 381 log vector N-1 -> memory buffer 382 | -> vector array 383 | -> Log Item 384 V 385 log vector N -> memory buffer 386 -> vector array 387 -> Log Item 388 389 Once this transfer is done, the CIL can be unlocked and new transactions can 390 start, while the checkpoint flush code works over the log vector chain to 391 commit the checkpoint. 392 393 Once the checkpoint is written into the log buffers, the checkpoint context is 394 attached to the log buffer that the commit record was written to along with a 395 completion callback. Log IO completion will call that callback, which can then 396 run transaction committed processing for the log items (i.e. insert into AIL 397 and unpin) in the log vector chain and then free the log vector chain and 398 checkpoint context. 399 400 Discussion Point: I am uncertain as to whether the log item is the most 401 efficient way to track vectors, even though it seems like the natural way to do 402 it. The fact that we walk the log items (in the CIL) just to chain the log 403 vectors and break the link between the log item and the log vector means that 404 we take a cache line hit for the log item list modification, then another for 405 the log vector chaining. If we track by the log vectors, then we only need to 406 break the link between the log item and the log vector, which means we should 407 dirty only the log item cachelines. Normally I wouldn't be concerned about one 408 vs two dirty cachelines except for the fact I've seen upwards of 80,000 log 409 vectors in one checkpoint transaction. I'd guess this is a "measure and 410 compare" situation that can be done after a working and reviewed implementation 411 is in the dev tree.... 412 413 Delayed Logging: Checkpoint Sequencing 414 415 One of the key aspects of the XFS transaction subsystem is that it tags 416 committed transactions with the log sequence number of the transaction commit. 417 This allows transactions to be issued asynchronously even though there may be 418 future operations that cannot be completed until that transaction is fully 419 committed to the log. In the rare case that a dependent operation occurs (e.g. 420 re-using a freed metadata extent for a data extent), a special, optimised log 421 force can be issued to force the dependent transaction to disk immediately. 422 423 To do this, transactions need to record the LSN of the commit record of the 424 transaction. This LSN comes directly from the log buffer the transaction is 425 written into. While this works just fine for the existing transaction 426 mechanism, it does not work for delayed logging because transactions are not 427 written directly into the log buffers. Hence some other method of sequencing 428 transactions is required. 429 430 As discussed in the checkpoint section, delayed logging uses per-checkpoint 431 contexts, and as such it is simple to assign a sequence number to each 432 checkpoint. Because the switching of checkpoint contexts must be done 433 atomically, it is simple to ensure that each new context has a monotonically 434 increasing sequence number assigned to it without the need for an external 435 atomic counter - we can just take the current context sequence number and add 436 one to it for the new context. 437 438 Then, instead of assigning a log buffer LSN to the transaction commit LSN 439 during the commit, we can assign the current checkpoint sequence. This allows 440 operations that track transactions that have not yet completed know what 441 checkpoint sequence needs to be committed before they can continue. As a 442 result, the code that forces the log to a specific LSN now needs to ensure that 443 the log forces to a specific checkpoint. 444 445 To ensure that we can do this, we need to track all the checkpoint contexts 446 that are currently committing to the log. When we flush a checkpoint, the 447 context gets added to a "committing" list which can be searched. When a 448 checkpoint commit completes, it is removed from the committing list. Because 449 the checkpoint context records the LSN of the commit record for the checkpoint, 450 we can also wait on the log buffer that contains the commit record, thereby 451 using the existing log force mechanisms to execute synchronous forces. 452 453 It should be noted that the synchronous forces may need to be extended with 454 mitigation algorithms similar to the current log buffer code to allow 455 aggregation of multiple synchronous transactions if there are already 456 synchronous transactions being flushed. Investigation of the performance of the 457 current design is needed before making any decisions here. 458 459 The main concern with log forces is to ensure that all the previous checkpoints 460 are also committed to disk before the one we need to wait for. Therefore we 461 need to check that all the prior contexts in the committing list are also 462 complete before waiting on the one we need to complete. We do this 463 synchronisation in the log force code so that we don't need to wait anywhere 464 else for such serialisation - it only matters when we do a log force. 465 466 The only remaining complexity is that a log force now also has to handle the 467 case where the forcing sequence number is the same as the current context. That 468 is, we need to flush the CIL and potentially wait for it to complete. This is a 469 simple addition to the existing log forcing code to check the sequence numbers 470 and push if required. Indeed, placing the current sequence checkpoint flush in 471 the log force code enables the current mechanism for issuing synchronous 472 transactions to remain untouched (i.e. commit an asynchronous transaction, then 473 force the log at the LSN of that transaction) and so the higher level code 474 behaves the same regardless of whether delayed logging is being used or not. 475 476 Delayed Logging: Checkpoint Log Space Accounting 477 478 The big issue for a checkpoint transaction is the log space reservation for the 479 transaction. We don't know how big a checkpoint transaction is going to be 480 ahead of time, nor how many log buffers it will take to write out, nor the 481 number of split log vector regions are going to be used. We can track the 482 amount of log space required as we add items to the commit item list, but we 483 still need to reserve the space in the log for the checkpoint. 484 485 A typical transaction reserves enough space in the log for the worst case space 486 usage of the transaction. The reservation accounts for log record headers, 487 transaction and region headers, headers for split regions, buffer tail padding, 488 etc. as well as the actual space for all the changed metadata in the 489 transaction. While some of this is fixed overhead, much of it is dependent on 490 the size of the transaction and the number of regions being logged (the number 491 of log vectors in the transaction). 492 493 An example of the differences would be logging directory changes versus logging 494 inode changes. If you modify lots of inode cores (e.g. chmod -R g+w *), then 495 there are lots of transactions that only contain an inode core and an inode log 496 format structure. That is, two vectors totaling roughly 150 bytes. If we modify 497 10,000 inodes, we have about 1.5MB of metadata to write in 20,000 vectors. Each 498 vector is 12 bytes, so the total to be logged is approximately 1.75MB. In 499 comparison, if we are logging full directory buffers, they are typically 4KB 500 each, so we in 1.5MB of directory buffers we'd have roughly 400 buffers and a 501 buffer format structure for each buffer - roughly 800 vectors or 1.51MB total 502 space. From this, it should be obvious that a static log space reservation is 503 not particularly flexible and is difficult to select the "optimal value" for 504 all workloads. 505 506 Further, if we are going to use a static reservation, which bit of the entire 507 reservation does it cover? We account for space used by the transaction 508 reservation by tracking the space currently used by the object in the CIL and 509 then calculating the increase or decrease in space used as the object is 510 relogged. This allows for a checkpoint reservation to only have to account for 511 log buffer metadata used such as log header records. 512 513 However, even using a static reservation for just the log metadata is 514 problematic. Typically log record headers use at least 16KB of log space per 515 1MB of log space consumed (512 bytes per 32k) and the reservation needs to be 516 large enough to handle arbitrary sized checkpoint transactions. This 517 reservation needs to be made before the checkpoint is started, and we need to 518 be able to reserve the space without sleeping. For a 8MB checkpoint, we need a 519 reservation of around 150KB, which is a non-trivial amount of space. 520 521 A static reservation needs to manipulate the log grant counters - we can take a 522 permanent reservation on the space, but we still need to make sure we refresh 523 the write reservation (the actual space available to the transaction) after 524 every checkpoint transaction completion. Unfortunately, if this space is not 525 available when required, then the regrant code will sleep waiting for it. 526 527 The problem with this is that it can lead to deadlocks as we may need to commit 528 checkpoints to be able to free up log space (refer back to the description of 529 rolling transactions for an example of this). Hence we *must* always have 530 space available in the log if we are to use static reservations, and that is 531 very difficult and complex to arrange. It is possible to do, but there is a 532 simpler way. 533 534 The simpler way of doing this is tracking the entire log space used by the 535 items in the CIL and using this to dynamically calculate the amount of log 536 space required by the log metadata. If this log metadata space changes as a 537 result of a transaction commit inserting a new memory buffer into the CIL, then 538 the difference in space required is removed from the transaction that causes 539 the change. Transactions at this level will *always* have enough space 540 available in their reservation for this as they have already reserved the 541 maximal amount of log metadata space they require, and such a delta reservation 542 will always be less than or equal to the maximal amount in the reservation. 543 544 Hence we can grow the checkpoint transaction reservation dynamically as items 545 are added to the CIL and avoid the need for reserving and regranting log space 546 up front. This avoids deadlocks and removes a blocking point from the 547 checkpoint flush code. 548 549 As mentioned early, transactions can't grow to more than half the size of the 550 log. Hence as part of the reservation growing, we need to also check the size 551 of the reservation against the maximum allowed transaction size. If we reach 552 the maximum threshold, we need to push the CIL to the log. This is effectively 553 a "background flush" and is done on demand. This is identical to 554 a CIL push triggered by a log force, only that there is no waiting for the 555 checkpoint commit to complete. This background push is checked and executed by 556 transaction commit code. 557 558 If the transaction subsystem goes idle while we still have items in the CIL, 559 they will be flushed by the periodic log force issued by the xfssyncd. This log 560 force will push the CIL to disk, and if the transaction subsystem stays idle, 561 allow the idle log to be covered (effectively marked clean) in exactly the same 562 manner that is done for the existing logging method. A discussion point is 563 whether this log force needs to be done more frequently than the current rate 564 which is once every 30s. 565 566 567 Delayed Logging: Log Item Pinning 568 569 Currently log items are pinned during transaction commit while the items are 570 still locked. This happens just after the items are formatted, though it could 571 be done any time before the items are unlocked. The result of this mechanism is 572 that items get pinned once for every transaction that is committed to the log 573 buffers. Hence items that are relogged in the log buffers will have a pin count 574 for every outstanding transaction they were dirtied in. When each of these 575 transactions is completed, they will unpin the item once. As a result, the item 576 only becomes unpinned when all the transactions complete and there are no 577 pending transactions. Thus the pinning and unpinning of a log item is symmetric 578 as there is a 1:1 relationship with transaction commit and log item completion. 579 580 For delayed logging, however, we have an asymmetric transaction commit to 581 completion relationship. Every time an object is relogged in the CIL it goes 582 through the commit process without a corresponding completion being registered. 583 That is, we now have a many-to-one relationship between transaction commit and 584 log item completion. The result of this is that pinning and unpinning of the 585 log items becomes unbalanced if we retain the "pin on transaction commit, unpin 586 on transaction completion" model. 587 588 To keep pin/unpin symmetry, the algorithm needs to change to a "pin on 589 insertion into the CIL, unpin on checkpoint completion". In other words, the 590 pinning and unpinning becomes symmetric around a checkpoint context. We have to 591 pin the object the first time it is inserted into the CIL - if it is already in 592 the CIL during a transaction commit, then we do not pin it again. Because there 593 can be multiple outstanding checkpoint contexts, we can still see elevated pin 594 counts, but as each checkpoint completes the pin count will retain the correct 595 value according to it's context. 596 597 Just to make matters more slightly more complex, this checkpoint level context 598 for the pin count means that the pinning of an item must take place under the 599 CIL commit/flush lock. If we pin the object outside this lock, we cannot 600 guarantee which context the pin count is associated with. This is because of 601 the fact pinning the item is dependent on whether the item is present in the 602 current CIL or not. If we don't pin the CIL first before we check and pin the 603 object, we have a race with CIL being flushed between the check and the pin 604 (or not pinning, as the case may be). Hence we must hold the CIL flush/commit 605 lock to guarantee that we pin the items correctly. 606 607 Delayed Logging: Concurrent Scalability 608 609 A fundamental requirement for the CIL is that accesses through transaction 610 commits must scale to many concurrent commits. The current transaction commit 611 code does not break down even when there are transactions coming from 2048 612 processors at once. The current transaction code does not go any faster than if 613 there was only one CPU using it, but it does not slow down either. 614 615 As a result, the delayed logging transaction commit code needs to be designed 616 for concurrency from the ground up. It is obvious that there are serialisation 617 points in the design - the three important ones are: 618 619 1. Locking out new transaction commits while flushing the CIL 620 2. Adding items to the CIL and updating item space accounting 621 3. Checkpoint commit ordering 622 623 Looking at the transaction commit and CIL flushing interactions, it is clear 624 that we have a many-to-one interaction here. That is, the only restriction on 625 the number of concurrent transactions that can be trying to commit at once is 626 the amount of space available in the log for their reservations. The practical 627 limit here is in the order of several hundred concurrent transactions for a 628 128MB log, which means that it is generally one per CPU in a machine. 629 630 The amount of time a transaction commit needs to hold out a flush is a 631 relatively long period of time - the pinning of log items needs to be done 632 while we are holding out a CIL flush, so at the moment that means it is held 633 across the formatting of the objects into memory buffers (i.e. while memcpy()s 634 are in progress). Ultimately a two pass algorithm where the formatting is done 635 separately to the pinning of objects could be used to reduce the hold time of 636 the transaction commit side. 637 638 Because of the number of potential transaction commit side holders, the lock 639 really needs to be a sleeping lock - if the CIL flush takes the lock, we do not 640 want every other CPU in the machine spinning on the CIL lock. Given that 641 flushing the CIL could involve walking a list of tens of thousands of log 642 items, it will get held for a significant time and so spin contention is a 643 significant concern. Preventing lots of CPUs spinning doing nothing is the 644 main reason for choosing a sleeping lock even though nothing in either the 645 transaction commit or CIL flush side sleeps with the lock held. 646 647 It should also be noted that CIL flushing is also a relatively rare operation 648 compared to transaction commit for asynchronous transaction workloads - only 649 time will tell if using a read-write semaphore for exclusion will limit 650 transaction commit concurrency due to cache line bouncing of the lock on the 651 read side. 652 653 The second serialisation point is on the transaction commit side where items 654 are inserted into the CIL. Because transactions can enter this code 655 concurrently, the CIL needs to be protected separately from the above 656 commit/flush exclusion. It also needs to be an exclusive lock but it is only 657 held for a very short time and so a spin lock is appropriate here. It is 658 possible that this lock will become a contention point, but given the short 659 hold time once per transaction I think that contention is unlikely. 660 661 The final serialisation point is the checkpoint commit record ordering code 662 that is run as part of the checkpoint commit and log force sequencing. The code 663 path that triggers a CIL flush (i.e. whatever triggers the log force) will enter 664 an ordering loop after writing all the log vectors into the log buffers but 665 before writing the commit record. This loop walks the list of committing 666 checkpoints and needs to block waiting for checkpoints to complete their commit 667 record write. As a result it needs a lock and a wait variable. Log force 668 sequencing also requires the same lock, list walk, and blocking mechanism to 669 ensure completion of checkpoints. 670 671 These two sequencing operations can use the mechanism even though the 672 events they are waiting for are different. The checkpoint commit record 673 sequencing needs to wait until checkpoint contexts contain a commit LSN 674 (obtained through completion of a commit record write) while log force 675 sequencing needs to wait until previous checkpoint contexts are removed from 676 the committing list (i.e. they've completed). A simple wait variable and 677 broadcast wakeups (thundering herds) has been used to implement these two 678 serialisation queues. They use the same lock as the CIL, too. If we see too 679 much contention on the CIL lock, or too many context switches as a result of 680 the broadcast wakeups these operations can be put under a new spinlock and 681 given separate wait lists to reduce lock contention and the number of processes 682 woken by the wrong event. 683 684 685 Lifecycle Changes 686 687 The existing log item life cycle is as follows: 688 689 1. Transaction allocate 690 2. Transaction reserve 691 3. Lock item 692 4. Join item to transaction 693 If not already attached, 694 Allocate log item 695 Attach log item to owner item 696 Attach log item to transaction 697 5. Modify item 698 Record modifications in log item 699 6. Transaction commit 700 Pin item in memory 701 Format item into log buffer 702 Write commit LSN into transaction 703 Unlock item 704 Attach transaction to log buffer 705 706 <log buffer IO dispatched> 707 <log buffer IO completes> 708 709 7. Transaction completion 710 Mark log item committed 711 Insert log item into AIL 712 Write commit LSN into log item 713 Unpin log item 714 8. AIL traversal 715 Lock item 716 Mark log item clean 717 Flush item to disk 718 719 <item IO completion> 720 721 9. Log item removed from AIL 722 Moves log tail 723 Item unlocked 724 725 Essentially, steps 1-6 operate independently from step 7, which is also 726 independent of steps 8-9. An item can be locked in steps 1-6 or steps 8-9 727 at the same time step 7 is occurring, but only steps 1-6 or 8-9 can occur 728 at the same time. If the log item is in the AIL or between steps 6 and 7 729 and steps 1-6 are re-entered, then the item is relogged. Only when steps 8-9 730 are entered and completed is the object considered clean. 731 732 With delayed logging, there are new steps inserted into the life cycle: 733 734 1. Transaction allocate 735 2. Transaction reserve 736 3. Lock item 737 4. Join item to transaction 738 If not already attached, 739 Allocate log item 740 Attach log item to owner item 741 Attach log item to transaction 742 5. Modify item 743 Record modifications in log item 744 6. Transaction commit 745 Pin item in memory if not pinned in CIL 746 Format item into log vector + buffer 747 Attach log vector and buffer to log item 748 Insert log item into CIL 749 Write CIL context sequence into transaction 750 Unlock item 751 752 <next log force> 753 754 7. CIL push 755 lock CIL flush 756 Chain log vectors and buffers together 757 Remove items from CIL 758 unlock CIL flush 759 write log vectors into log 760 sequence commit records 761 attach checkpoint context to log buffer 762 763 <log buffer IO dispatched> 764 <log buffer IO completes> 765 766 8. Checkpoint completion 767 Mark log item committed 768 Insert item into AIL 769 Write commit LSN into log item 770 Unpin log item 771 9. AIL traversal 772 Lock item 773 Mark log item clean 774 Flush item to disk 775 <item IO completion> 776 10. Log item removed from AIL 777 Moves log tail 778 Item unlocked 779 780 From this, it can be seen that the only life cycle differences between the two 781 logging methods are in the middle of the life cycle - they still have the same 782 beginning and end and execution constraints. The only differences are in the 783 committing of the log items to the log itself and the completion processing. 784 Hence delayed logging should not introduce any constraints on log item 785 behaviour, allocation or freeing that don't already exist. 786 787 As a result of this zero-impact "insertion" of delayed logging infrastructure 788 and the design of the internal structures to avoid on disk format changes, we 789 can basically switch between delayed logging and the existing mechanism with a 790 mount option. Fundamentally, there is no reason why the log manager would not 791 be able to swap methods automatically and transparently depending on load 792 characteristics, but this should not be necessary if delayed logging works as 793 designed.