Message-ID: <CAOvWMLYXUcYUnnzPzMTJZF8iZ73a+BuC+YRePjRZhY_WtL5Jfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:50:09 -0800
From:	Andiry Xu <andiry@...il.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Andiry Xu <andiry.xu@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG][ext2] XIP does not work on ext2

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> On Thu 07-11-13 12:14:13, Andiry Xu wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
>> > On Tue 05-11-13 17:28:35, Andiry Xu wrote:
>> >> >> Do you know the reason why write() outperforms mmap() in some cases? I
>> >> >> know it's not related the thread but I really appreciate if you can
>> >> >> answer my question.
>> >> >   Well, I'm not completely sure. mmap()ed memory always works on page-by-page
>> >> > basis - you first access the page, it gets faulted in and you can further
>> >> > access it. So for small (sub page size) accesses this is a win because you
>> >> > don't have an overhead of syscall and fs write path. For accesses larger
>> >> > than page size the overhead of syscall and some initial checks is well
>> >> > hidden by other things. I guess write() ends up being more efficient
>> >> > because write path taken for each page is somewhat lighter than full page
>> >> > fault. But you'd need to look into perf data to get some hard numbers on
>> >> > where the time is spent.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the reply. However I have filled up the whole RAM disk
>> >> before doing the test, i.e. asked the brd driver to allocate all the
>> >> pages initially.
>> >   Well, pages in ramdisk are always present, that's not an issue. But you
>> > will get a page fault to map a particular physical page in process'
>> > virtual address space when you first access that virtual address in the
>> > mapping from the process. The cost of setting up this virtual->physical
>> > mapping is what I'm talking about.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, you are right, there are page faults observed with perf. I
>> misunderstood page fault as copying pages between backing store and
>> physical memory.
>>
>> > If you had a process which first mmaps the file and writes to all pages in
>> > the mapping and *then* measure the cost of another round of writing to the
>> > mapping, I would expect you should see speeds close to those of memory bus.
>> >
>>
>> I've tried this as well. mmap() performance improves but still not as
>> good as write().
>> I used the perf report to compare write() and mmap() applications. For
>> write() version, top of perf report shows as:
>> 33.33%  __copy_user_nocache
>> 4.72%    ext2_get_blocks
>> 4.42%    mutex_unlock
>> 3.59%    __find_get_block
>>
>> which looks reasonable.
>>
>> However, for mmap() version, the perf report looks strange:
>> 94.98% libc-2.15.so       [.] 0x000000000014698d
>> 2.25%   page_fault
>> 0.18%   handle_mm_fault
>>
>> I don't know what the first item is but it took the majority of cycles.
>   The first item means that it's some userspace code in libc. My guess
> would be that it's libc's memcpy() function (or whatever you use to write
> to mmap). How do you access the mmap?
>

Like this:

fd = open(file_name, O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_DIRECT, 0755);
dest = (char *)mmap(NULL, FILE_SIZE, PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
       memcpy(dest, src, request_size);
       dest += request_size;
}

Thanks,
Andiry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists