On Wednesday 12 September 2007 11:49, David Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 04:00:17PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > OTOH, I'm not sure how much buy-in there was from the filesystems
> > > > guys. Particularly Christoph H and XFS (which is strange because they
> > > > already do vmapping in places).
> > >
> > > I think they use vmapping because they have to, not because they want
> > > to. They might be a lot happier with fsblock if it used contiguous
> > > pages for large blocks whenever possible - I don't know for sure. The
> > > metadata accessors they might be unhappy with because it's inconvenient
> > > but as Christoph Hellwig pointed out at VM/FS, the filesystems who
> > > really care will convert.
> >
> > Sure, they would rather not to. But there are also a lot of ways you can
> > improve vmap more than what XFS does (or probably what darwin does)
> > (more persistence for cached objects, and batched invalidates for
> > example).
>
> XFS already has persistence across the object life time (which can be many
> tens of seconds for a frequently used buffer)
But you don't do a very good job. When you go above 64 vmaps cached, you
purge _all_ of them. fsblock's vmap cache can have a much higher number
(if you want), and purging will only unmap a smaller batch, decided by a
simple LRU.
> and it also does batched
> unmapping of objects as well.
It also could do a lot better at unmapping. Currently you're just calling
vunmap a lot of times in sequence. That still requires global IPIs and TLB
flushing every time.
This simple patch should easily be able to reduce that number by 2 or 3
orders of magnitude on 64-bit systems. Maybe more if you increase the
batch size.
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03956.html
vmap area manipulation scalability and search complexity could also be
improved quite easily, I suspect.
> > There are also a lot of trivial things you can do to make a lot of those
> > accesses not require vmaps (and less trivial things, but even such things
> > as binary searches over multiple pages should be quite possible with a
> > bit of logic).
>
> Yes, we already do the many of these things (via xfs_buf_offset()), but
> that is not good enough for something like a memcpy that spans multiple
> pages in a large block (think btree block compaction, splits and
> recombines).
fsblock_memcpy(fsblock *src, int soff, fsblock *dst, int doff, int size); ?
> IOWs, we already play these vmap harm-minimisation games in the places
> where we can, but still the overhead is high and something we'd prefer
> to be able to avoid.
I don't think you've looked very far with all this low hanging fruit.
The several ways I suggested combined might easily reduce xfs vmap
overhead by several orders of magnitude, all without changing much
code at all.
Can you provide a formula to reproduce these workloads where vmap
overhead in XFS is a problem? (huge IO capacity need not be an issue,
because I could try reproducing it on a 64-way on ramdisks for example).
-
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]
