On 22.08.2023 14:24, Mark Millard wrote:
Alexander Motin <mav_at_FreeBSD.org> wrote on
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 16:18:12 UTC :
I am waiting for final test results from George Wilson and then will
request quick merge of both to zfs-2.2-release branch. Unfortunately
there are still not many reviewers for the PR, since the code is not
trivial, but at least with the test reports Brian Behlendorf and Mark
Maybee seem to be OK to merge the two PRs into 2.2. If somebody else
have tested and/or reviewed the PR, you may comment on it.
I had written to the list that when I tried to test the system
doing poudriere builds (initially with your patches) using
USE_TMPFS=no so that zfs had to deal with all the file I/O, I
instead got only one builder that ended up active, the others
never reaching "Builder started":
Top was showing lots of "vlruwk" for the cpdup's. For example:
. . .
362 0 root 40 0 27076Ki 13776Ki CPU19 19 4:23 0.00%
cpdup -i0 -o ref 32
349 0 root 53 0 27076Ki 13776Ki vlruwk 22 4:20 0.01%
cpdup -i0 -o ref 31
328 0 root 68 0 27076Ki 13804Ki vlruwk 8 4:30 0.01%
cpdup -i0 -o ref 30
304 0 root 37 0 27076Ki 13792Ki vlruwk 6 4:18 0.01%
cpdup -i0 -o ref 29
282 0 root 42 0 33220Ki 13956Ki vlruwk 8 4:33 0.01%
cpdup -i0 -o ref 28
242 0 root 56 0 27076Ki 13796Ki vlruwk 4 4:28 0.00%
cpdup -i0 -o ref 27
. . .
But those processes did show CPU?? on occasion, as well as
*vnode less often. None of the cpdup's was stuck in
Removing your patches did not change the behavior.
Mark, to me "vlruwk" looks like a limit on number of vnodes. I was not
deep in that area at least recently, so somebody with more experience
there could try to diagnose it. At very least it does not look related
to the ZIL issue discussed in this thread, at least with the information
provided, so I am not surprised that the mentioned patches do not affect it.
--
Alexander Motin
