[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <3342D7D7-C5A2-421D-9CB0-B7A4DD0A1200@dilger.ca>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 12:14:46 -0700
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To: Andreas Grünbacher <andreas.gruenbacher@...il.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Laurent GUERBY <laurent@...rby.net>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] mbcache2: Reimplement mbcache
On Jan 9, 2016, at 05:11, Andreas Grünbacher <andreas.gruenbacher@...il.com> wrote:
>
> 2015-12-16 18:00 GMT+01:00 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>:
>> Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext?
>> filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it
>> had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache
>> entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more
>> complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code
>> complexity.
>>
>> This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the
>> purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably
>> smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as
>> well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is
>> also much more lightweight.
>>
>> I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which
>> spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and
>> the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages
>> of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below.
>> The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new
>> mbcache.
>>
>> V=10
>> F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64
>> 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803
>> 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943
>> 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888
>>
>> V=100
>> F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64
>> 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501
>> 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484
>> 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160
>>
>> V=1000
>> F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64
>> 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801
>> 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887
>> 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579
>>
>> V=10000
>> F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64
>> 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746
>> 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760
>> 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620
>>
>> V=100000
>> F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64
>> 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771
>> 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544
>> 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198
>>
>> We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and
>> starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code
>> resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of
>> cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the
>> kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
>> ---
>> fs/Makefile | 2 +-
>> fs/mbcache2.c | 362 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/mbcache2.h | 52 +++++++
>> 3 files changed, 415 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> create mode 100644 fs/mbcache2.c
>> create mode 100644 include/linux/mbcache2.h
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/Makefile b/fs/Makefile
>> index 79f522575cba..15b3d6c4e46a 100644
>> --- a/fs/Makefile
>> +++ b/fs/Makefile
>> @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_COMPAT_BINFMT_ELF) += compat_binfmt_elf.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF_FDPIC) += binfmt_elf_fdpic.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_BINFMT_FLAT) += binfmt_flat.o
>>
>> -obj-$(CONFIG_FS_MBCACHE) += mbcache.o
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_FS_MBCACHE) += mbcache.o mbcache2.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_FS_POSIX_ACL) += posix_acl.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_NFS_COMMON) += nfs_common/
>> obj-$(CONFIG_COREDUMP) += coredump.o
>> diff --git a/fs/mbcache2.c b/fs/mbcache2.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..283c46e62f5f
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/fs/mbcache2.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,362 @@
>> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
>> +#include <linux/slab.h>
>> +#include <linux/list.h>
>> +#include <linux/list_bl.h>
>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>> +#include <linux/sched.h>
>> +#include <linux/mbcache2.h>
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Mbcache is a simple key-value store. Keys need not be unique, however
>> + * key-value pairs are expected to be unique (we use this fact in
>> + * mb2_cache_entry_delete_block()).
>> + *
>> + * Ext2 and ext4 use this cache for deduplication of extended attribute blocks.
>
> The term deduplication usually refers to removing existing duplicates;
> here we're trying to avoid creating duplicates in the first place
> though.
It can be either. Online deduplication avoids creating duplicate blocks in the first place, offline deduplication is removing duplicates after the fact.
Cheers, Andreas--
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