On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:07:16 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 02:55 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:52:02 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Count per BDI writeback pages.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/backing-dev.h | 1 +
> > > mm/page-writeback.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Index: linux-2.6/mm/page-writeback.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/page-writeback.c 2007-04-20 15:27:28.000000000 +0200
> > > +++ linux-2.6/mm/page-writeback.c 2007-04-20 15:28:10.000000000 +0200
> > > @@ -979,14 +979,18 @@ int test_clear_page_writeback(struct pag
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > if (mapping) {
> > > + struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info;
> > > unsigned long flags;
> > >
> > > write_lock_irqsave(&mapping->tree_lock, flags);
> > > ret = TestClearPageWriteback(page);
> > > - if (ret)
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > radix_tree_tag_clear(&mapping->page_tree,
> > > page_index(page),
> > > PAGECACHE_TAG_WRITEBACK);
> > > + if (bdi_cap_writeback_dirty(bdi))
> > > + __dec_bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_WRITEBACK);
> >
> > Why do we test bdi_cap_writeback_dirty() here?
> >
> > If we remove that test, we end up accumulating statistics for
> > non-writebackable backing devs, but does that matter?
>
> It would not, had I not cheated:
>
> +void bdi_init(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + if (!(bdi_cap_writeback_dirty(bdi) || bdi_cap_account_dirty(bdi)))
> + return;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < NR_BDI_STAT_ITEMS; i++)
> + percpu_counter_init(&bdi->bdi_stat[i], 0);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(bdi_init);
>
> > Probably the common
> > case is writebackable backing-devs, so eliminating the test-n-branch might
> > be a net microgain.
>
> Time vs space. Now we don't even have storage for those BDIs..
>
> Don't particularly care on this point though, I just thought it might be
> worthwhile to save on the percpu data.
It could be that we never call test_clear_page_writeback() against
!bdi_cap_writeback_dirty() pages anwyay. I can't think why we would, but
the relationships there aren't very clear. Does "don't account for dirty
memory" imply "doesn't ever do writeback"? One would need to check, and
it's perhaps a bit fragile.
It's worth checking though. Boy we're doing a lot of stuff in there
nowadays.
OT: it might be worth looking into batching this work up - the predominant
caller should be mpage_end_io_write(), and he has a whole bunch of pages
which are usually all from the same file, all contiguous. It's pretty
inefficient to be handling that data one-page-at-a-time, and some
significant speedups may be available.
Instead, everyone seems to think that variable pagecache page size is the
only way of improving things. Shudder.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
