| xj | b04a402 | 2021-11-25 15:01:52 +0800 | [diff] [blame] | 1 | .. _cleancache: | 
 | 2 |  | 
 | 3 | ========== | 
 | 4 | Cleancache | 
 | 5 | ========== | 
 | 6 |  | 
 | 7 | Motivation | 
 | 8 | ========== | 
 | 9 |  | 
 | 10 | Cleancache is a new optional feature provided by the VFS layer that | 
 | 11 | potentially dramatically increases page cache effectiveness for | 
 | 12 | many workloads in many environments at a negligible cost. | 
 | 13 |  | 
 | 14 | Cleancache can be thought of as a page-granularity victim cache for clean | 
 | 15 | pages that the kernel's pageframe replacement algorithm (PFRA) would like | 
 | 16 | to keep around, but can't since there isn't enough memory.  So when the | 
 | 17 | PFRA "evicts" a page, it first attempts to use cleancache code to | 
 | 18 | put the data contained in that page into "transcendent memory", memory | 
 | 19 | that is not directly accessible or addressable by the kernel and is | 
 | 20 | of unknown and possibly time-varying size. | 
 | 21 |  | 
 | 22 | Later, when a cleancache-enabled filesystem wishes to access a page | 
 | 23 | in a file on disk, it first checks cleancache to see if it already | 
 | 24 | contains it; if it does, the page of data is copied into the kernel | 
 | 25 | and a disk access is avoided. | 
 | 26 |  | 
 | 27 | Transcendent memory "drivers" for cleancache are currently implemented | 
 | 28 | in Xen (using hypervisor memory) and zcache (using in-kernel compressed | 
 | 29 | memory) and other implementations are in development. | 
 | 30 |  | 
 | 31 | :ref:`FAQs <faq>` are included below. | 
 | 32 |  | 
 | 33 | Implementation Overview | 
 | 34 | ======================= | 
 | 35 |  | 
 | 36 | A cleancache "backend" that provides transcendent memory registers itself | 
 | 37 | to the kernel's cleancache "frontend" by calling cleancache_register_ops, | 
 | 38 | passing a pointer to a cleancache_ops structure with funcs set appropriately. | 
 | 39 | The functions provided must conform to certain semantics as follows: | 
 | 40 |  | 
 | 41 | Most important, cleancache is "ephemeral".  Pages which are copied into | 
 | 42 | cleancache have an indefinite lifetime which is completely unknowable | 
 | 43 | by the kernel and so may or may not still be in cleancache at any later time. | 
 | 44 | Thus, as its name implies, cleancache is not suitable for dirty pages. | 
 | 45 | Cleancache has complete discretion over what pages to preserve and what | 
 | 46 | pages to discard and when. | 
 | 47 |  | 
 | 48 | Mounting a cleancache-enabled filesystem should call "init_fs" to obtain a | 
 | 49 | pool id which, if positive, must be saved in the filesystem's superblock; | 
 | 50 | a negative return value indicates failure.  A "put_page" will copy a | 
 | 51 | (presumably about-to-be-evicted) page into cleancache and associate it with | 
 | 52 | the pool id, a file key, and a page index into the file.  (The combination | 
 | 53 | of a pool id, a file key, and an index is sometimes called a "handle".) | 
 | 54 | A "get_page" will copy the page, if found, from cleancache into kernel memory. | 
 | 55 | An "invalidate_page" will ensure the page no longer is present in cleancache; | 
 | 56 | an "invalidate_inode" will invalidate all pages associated with the specified | 
 | 57 | file; and, when a filesystem is unmounted, an "invalidate_fs" will invalidate | 
 | 58 | all pages in all files specified by the given pool id and also surrender | 
 | 59 | the pool id. | 
 | 60 |  | 
 | 61 | An "init_shared_fs", like init_fs, obtains a pool id but tells cleancache | 
 | 62 | to treat the pool as shared using a 128-bit UUID as a key.  On systems | 
 | 63 | that may run multiple kernels (such as hard partitioned or virtualized | 
 | 64 | systems) that may share a clustered filesystem, and where cleancache | 
 | 65 | may be shared among those kernels, calls to init_shared_fs that specify the | 
 | 66 | same UUID will receive the same pool id, thus allowing the pages to | 
 | 67 | be shared.  Note that any security requirements must be imposed outside | 
 | 68 | of the kernel (e.g. by "tools" that control cleancache).  Or a | 
 | 69 | cleancache implementation can simply disable shared_init by always | 
 | 70 | returning a negative value. | 
 | 71 |  | 
 | 72 | If a get_page is successful on a non-shared pool, the page is invalidated | 
 | 73 | (thus making cleancache an "exclusive" cache).  On a shared pool, the page | 
 | 74 | is NOT invalidated on a successful get_page so that it remains accessible to | 
 | 75 | other sharers.  The kernel is responsible for ensuring coherency between | 
 | 76 | cleancache (shared or not), the page cache, and the filesystem, using | 
 | 77 | cleancache invalidate operations as required. | 
 | 78 |  | 
 | 79 | Note that cleancache must enforce put-put-get coherency and get-get | 
 | 80 | coherency.  For the former, if two puts are made to the same handle but | 
 | 81 | with different data, say AAA by the first put and BBB by the second, a | 
 | 82 | subsequent get can never return the stale data (AAA).  For get-get coherency, | 
 | 83 | if a get for a given handle fails, subsequent gets for that handle will | 
 | 84 | never succeed unless preceded by a successful put with that handle. | 
 | 85 |  | 
 | 86 | Last, cleancache provides no SMP serialization guarantees; if two | 
 | 87 | different Linux threads are simultaneously putting and invalidating a page | 
 | 88 | with the same handle, the results are indeterminate.  Callers must | 
 | 89 | lock the page to ensure serial behavior. | 
 | 90 |  | 
 | 91 | Cleancache Performance Metrics | 
 | 92 | ============================== | 
 | 93 |  | 
 | 94 | If properly configured, monitoring of cleancache is done via debugfs in | 
 | 95 | the `/sys/kernel/debug/cleancache` directory.  The effectiveness of cleancache | 
 | 96 | can be measured (across all filesystems) with: | 
 | 97 |  | 
 | 98 | ``succ_gets`` | 
 | 99 | 	number of gets that were successful | 
 | 100 |  | 
 | 101 | ``failed_gets`` | 
 | 102 | 	number of gets that failed | 
 | 103 |  | 
 | 104 | ``puts`` | 
 | 105 | 	number of puts attempted (all "succeed") | 
 | 106 |  | 
 | 107 | ``invalidates`` | 
 | 108 | 	number of invalidates attempted | 
 | 109 |  | 
 | 110 | A backend implementation may provide additional metrics. | 
 | 111 |  | 
 | 112 | .. _faq: | 
 | 113 |  | 
 | 114 | FAQ | 
 | 115 | === | 
 | 116 |  | 
 | 117 | * Where's the value? (Andrew Morton) | 
 | 118 |  | 
 | 119 | Cleancache provides a significant performance benefit to many workloads | 
 | 120 | in many environments with negligible overhead by improving the | 
 | 121 | effectiveness of the pagecache.  Clean pagecache pages are | 
 | 122 | saved in transcendent memory (RAM that is otherwise not directly | 
 | 123 | addressable to the kernel); fetching those pages later avoids "refaults" | 
 | 124 | and thus disk reads. | 
 | 125 |  | 
 | 126 | Cleancache (and its sister code "frontswap") provide interfaces for | 
 | 127 | this transcendent memory (aka "tmem"), which conceptually lies between | 
 | 128 | fast kernel-directly-addressable RAM and slower DMA/asynchronous devices. | 
 | 129 | Disallowing direct kernel or userland reads/writes to tmem | 
 | 130 | is ideal when data is transformed to a different form and size (such | 
 | 131 | as with compression) or secretly moved (as might be useful for write- | 
 | 132 | balancing for some RAM-like devices).  Evicted page-cache pages (and | 
 | 133 | swap pages) are a great use for this kind of slower-than-RAM-but-much- | 
 | 134 | faster-than-disk transcendent memory, and the cleancache (and frontswap) | 
 | 135 | "page-object-oriented" specification provides a nice way to read and | 
 | 136 | write -- and indirectly "name" -- the pages. | 
 | 137 |  | 
 | 138 | In the virtual case, the whole point of virtualization is to statistically | 
 | 139 | multiplex physical resources across the varying demands of multiple | 
 | 140 | virtual machines.  This is really hard to do with RAM and efforts to | 
 | 141 | do it well with no kernel change have essentially failed (except in some | 
 | 142 | well-publicized special-case workloads).  Cleancache -- and frontswap -- | 
 | 143 | with a fairly small impact on the kernel, provide a huge amount | 
 | 144 | of flexibility for more dynamic, flexible RAM multiplexing. | 
 | 145 | Specifically, the Xen Transcendent Memory backend allows otherwise | 
 | 146 | "fallow" hypervisor-owned RAM to not only be "time-shared" between multiple | 
 | 147 | virtual machines, but the pages can be compressed and deduplicated to | 
 | 148 | optimize RAM utilization.  And when guest OS's are induced to surrender | 
 | 149 | underutilized RAM (e.g. with "self-ballooning"), page cache pages | 
 | 150 | are the first to go, and cleancache allows those pages to be | 
 | 151 | saved and reclaimed if overall host system memory conditions allow. | 
 | 152 |  | 
 | 153 | And the identical interface used for cleancache can be used in | 
 | 154 | physical systems as well.  The zcache driver acts as a memory-hungry | 
 | 155 | device that stores pages of data in a compressed state.  And | 
 | 156 | the proposed "RAMster" driver shares RAM across multiple physical | 
 | 157 | systems. | 
 | 158 |  | 
 | 159 | * Why does cleancache have its sticky fingers so deep inside the | 
 | 160 |   filesystems and VFS? (Andrew Morton and Christoph Hellwig) | 
 | 161 |  | 
 | 162 | The core hooks for cleancache in VFS are in most cases a single line | 
 | 163 | and the minimum set are placed precisely where needed to maintain | 
 | 164 | coherency (via cleancache_invalidate operations) between cleancache, | 
 | 165 | the page cache, and disk.  All hooks compile into nothingness if | 
 | 166 | cleancache is config'ed off and turn into a function-pointer- | 
 | 167 | compare-to-NULL if config'ed on but no backend claims the ops | 
 | 168 | functions, or to a compare-struct-element-to-negative if a | 
 | 169 | backend claims the ops functions but a filesystem doesn't enable | 
 | 170 | cleancache. | 
 | 171 |  | 
 | 172 | Some filesystems are built entirely on top of VFS and the hooks | 
 | 173 | in VFS are sufficient, so don't require an "init_fs" hook; the | 
 | 174 | initial implementation of cleancache didn't provide this hook. | 
 | 175 | But for some filesystems (such as btrfs), the VFS hooks are | 
 | 176 | incomplete and one or more hooks in fs-specific code are required. | 
 | 177 | And for some other filesystems, such as tmpfs, cleancache may | 
 | 178 | be counterproductive.  So it seemed prudent to require a filesystem | 
 | 179 | to "opt in" to use cleancache, which requires adding a hook in | 
 | 180 | each filesystem.  Not all filesystems are supported by cleancache | 
 | 181 | only because they haven't been tested.  The existing set should | 
 | 182 | be sufficient to validate the concept, the opt-in approach means | 
 | 183 | that untested filesystems are not affected, and the hooks in the | 
 | 184 | existing filesystems should make it very easy to add more | 
 | 185 | filesystems in the future. | 
 | 186 |  | 
 | 187 | The total impact of the hooks to existing fs and mm files is only | 
 | 188 | about 40 lines added (not counting comments and blank lines). | 
 | 189 |  | 
 | 190 | * Why not make cleancache asynchronous and batched so it can more | 
 | 191 |   easily interface with real devices with DMA instead of copying each | 
 | 192 |   individual page? (Minchan Kim) | 
 | 193 |  | 
 | 194 | The one-page-at-a-time copy semantics simplifies the implementation | 
 | 195 | on both the frontend and backend and also allows the backend to | 
 | 196 | do fancy things on-the-fly like page compression and | 
 | 197 | page deduplication.  And since the data is "gone" (copied into/out | 
 | 198 | of the pageframe) before the cleancache get/put call returns, | 
 | 199 | a great deal of race conditions and potential coherency issues | 
 | 200 | are avoided.  While the interface seems odd for a "real device" | 
 | 201 | or for real kernel-addressable RAM, it makes perfect sense for | 
 | 202 | transcendent memory. | 
 | 203 |  | 
 | 204 | * Why is non-shared cleancache "exclusive"?  And where is the | 
 | 205 |   page "invalidated" after a "get"? (Minchan Kim) | 
 | 206 |  | 
 | 207 | The main reason is to free up space in transcendent memory and | 
 | 208 | to avoid unnecessary cleancache_invalidate calls.  If you want inclusive, | 
 | 209 | the page can be "put" immediately following the "get".  If | 
 | 210 | put-after-get for inclusive becomes common, the interface could | 
 | 211 | be easily extended to add a "get_no_invalidate" call. | 
 | 212 |  | 
 | 213 | The invalidate is done by the cleancache backend implementation. | 
 | 214 |  | 
 | 215 | * What's the performance impact? | 
 | 216 |  | 
 | 217 | Performance analysis has been presented at OLS'09 and LCA'10. | 
 | 218 | Briefly, performance gains can be significant on most workloads, | 
 | 219 | especially when memory pressure is high (e.g. when RAM is | 
 | 220 | overcommitted in a virtual workload); and because the hooks are | 
 | 221 | invoked primarily in place of or in addition to a disk read/write, | 
 | 222 | overhead is negligible even in worst case workloads.  Basically | 
 | 223 | cleancache replaces I/O with memory-copy-CPU-overhead; on older | 
 | 224 | single-core systems with slow memory-copy speeds, cleancache | 
 | 225 | has little value, but in newer multicore machines, especially | 
 | 226 | consolidated/virtualized machines, it has great value. | 
 | 227 |  | 
 | 228 | * How do I add cleancache support for filesystem X? (Boaz Harrash) | 
 | 229 |  | 
 | 230 | Filesystems that are well-behaved and conform to certain | 
 | 231 | restrictions can utilize cleancache simply by making a call to | 
 | 232 | cleancache_init_fs at mount time.  Unusual, misbehaving, or | 
 | 233 | poorly layered filesystems must either add additional hooks | 
 | 234 | and/or undergo extensive additional testing... or should just | 
 | 235 | not enable the optional cleancache. | 
 | 236 |  | 
 | 237 | Some points for a filesystem to consider: | 
 | 238 |  | 
 | 239 |   - The FS should be block-device-based (e.g. a ram-based FS such | 
 | 240 |     as tmpfs should not enable cleancache) | 
 | 241 |   - To ensure coherency/correctness, the FS must ensure that all | 
 | 242 |     file removal or truncation operations either go through VFS or | 
 | 243 |     add hooks to do the equivalent cleancache "invalidate" operations | 
 | 244 |   - To ensure coherency/correctness, either inode numbers must | 
 | 245 |     be unique across the lifetime of the on-disk file OR the | 
 | 246 |     FS must provide an "encode_fh" function. | 
 | 247 |   - The FS must call the VFS superblock alloc and deactivate routines | 
 | 248 |     or add hooks to do the equivalent cleancache calls done there. | 
 | 249 |   - To maximize performance, all pages fetched from the FS should | 
 | 250 |     go through the do_mpag_readpage routine or the FS should add | 
 | 251 |     hooks to do the equivalent (cf. btrfs) | 
 | 252 |   - Currently, the FS blocksize must be the same as PAGESIZE.  This | 
 | 253 |     is not an architectural restriction, but no backends currently | 
 | 254 |     support anything different. | 
 | 255 |   - A clustered FS should invoke the "shared_init_fs" cleancache | 
 | 256 |     hook to get best performance for some backends. | 
 | 257 |  | 
 | 258 | * Why not use the KVA of the inode as the key? (Christoph Hellwig) | 
 | 259 |  | 
 | 260 | If cleancache would use the inode virtual address instead of | 
 | 261 | inode/filehandle, the pool id could be eliminated.  But, this | 
 | 262 | won't work because cleancache retains pagecache data pages | 
 | 263 | persistently even when the inode has been pruned from the | 
 | 264 | inode unused list, and only invalidates the data page if the file | 
 | 265 | gets removed/truncated.  So if cleancache used the inode kva, | 
 | 266 | there would be potential coherency issues if/when the inode | 
 | 267 | kva is reused for a different file.  Alternately, if cleancache | 
 | 268 | invalidated the pages when the inode kva was freed, much of the value | 
 | 269 | of cleancache would be lost because the cache of pages in cleanache | 
 | 270 | is potentially much larger than the kernel pagecache and is most | 
 | 271 | useful if the pages survive inode cache removal. | 
 | 272 |  | 
 | 273 | * Why is a global variable required? | 
 | 274 |  | 
 | 275 | The cleancache_enabled flag is checked in all of the frequently-used | 
 | 276 | cleancache hooks.  The alternative is a function call to check a static | 
 | 277 | variable. Since cleancache is enabled dynamically at runtime, systems | 
 | 278 | that don't enable cleancache would suffer thousands (possibly | 
 | 279 | tens-of-thousands) of unnecessary function calls per second.  So the | 
 | 280 | global variable allows cleancache to be enabled by default at compile | 
 | 281 | time, but have insignificant performance impact when cleancache remains | 
 | 282 | disabled at runtime. | 
 | 283 |  | 
 | 284 | * Does cleanache work with KVM? | 
 | 285 |  | 
 | 286 | The memory model of KVM is sufficiently different that a cleancache | 
 | 287 | backend may have less value for KVM.  This remains to be tested, | 
 | 288 | especially in an overcommitted system. | 
 | 289 |  | 
 | 290 | * Does cleancache work in userspace?  It sounds useful for | 
 | 291 |   memory hungry caches like web browsers.  (Jamie Lokier) | 
 | 292 |  | 
 | 293 | No plans yet, though we agree it sounds useful, at least for | 
 | 294 | apps that bypass the page cache (e.g. O_DIRECT). | 
 | 295 |  | 
 | 296 | Last updated: Dan Magenheimer, April 13 2011 |